Can a computer have free will?

[RVBuckeye]

I was thinking of the subject today. I remembered back in high school we were able to use the new TI-81 graphing calculators. (sorry if that dates me). One of the cool features was being able to program simple games. One such game was Dice. To get more to the point, one of the functions was asking the computer to display a random number between 1 and 6. Now, I have a few questions as I am unclear whether the original programmer who wrote the original code for the calculator could know, in advance, what number it would choose? If not, does the computer show free will when it chooses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6? (I'm not talking a conscious decision, but merely making a choice between a set of numbers however it comes about). If the original programmer cannot/does not know the outcome, I would say it does display a free will choice.

The reason why I ask this question is I'm having trouble with thinking about my brain as merely a bio-computer. I'm having trouble understanding the possibility that someday someone will be able to de-code our brain into some mathematical equation. I'm having trouble trying to fathom how they will ever be able to crack the code of free-will.

I can only imagine being able to narrow down the possible set of choices to either A or B. But I don't see how it would be possible to predict which of the 2 will be chosen.

 

[Lou1024]

A computer has to some extent free will but it is confined inside the boundaries of the terms set.

 

[RVBuckeye]

A computer has to some extent free will but it is confined inside the boundaries of the terms set.

Would you say that the human brain is confined inside the boundaries of some set terms as well? (I don't want this to get into who/what sets the terms).

 

[Orefa]

But I don't see how it would be possible to predict which of the 2 will be chosen.

If someone or something can predict what you will do then you don't have free will. You can only do what has been predicted, otherwise the prediction is wrong. The possibility of predicting what anyone or anything will do negates the possibility of free will.

 

[RVBuckeye]

If someone or something can predict what you will do then you don't have free will. You can only do what has been predicted, otherwise the prediction is wrong. The possibility of predicting what anyone or anything will do negates the possibility of free will.

I don't think anyone can argue with that.

Let me clarify my questions. If our brains are bio-computers, then:

A) Is it possible for the "programming" to be reverse engineered?
B) If "A" is yes, Could our free will simply be programming like that of the calculator with a choice between a set of terms?
C) If "A" and "B" is yes, Wouldn't that prevent anyone from doing "A" to the point where one could predict a humans choice?
D) or is it that "A" is yes but "B" is no? Which makes free will an illusion, where we will choose something purely by following our programming.

But for any of those questions to be relevant is whether or not the original programmer can mathematically predict the choice given the set of terms when he first wrote the program. (I'm not talking about God here, the programmer I'm referring to is the TI-81 programmer)

For the record, I am leaning toward "A" and "B" being plausible, and struggling with "C" and "D".

 

[octelcogopod]

Well, unless the consciousness is outside the laws of physics, then by logic alone it is confined to the laws of physics, which means all choices could be predicted. (Unless of course this is an indeterministic universe and the rules of physics change at random.)

Whether or not the programmer can determine the outcome depends on the depth he researches the issue.
For instance I can do rand(1,6) and it would spit out a random number between, to me as a programmer I wouldn't know HOW it did that unless I dug into how the rand function was built.
If I built the rand function I presume I would use some sort of algorhithm or some such, but then again, I would still not know how the algorhithm chooses the numbers. So I would have to go into machine code, or assembly as it's called, and then go from there.
But not even that would give me an answer, so i would have to go into the circuitry, and "follow the current" so to speak.
But not even that would give me the answer I was looking for, so I'd have to go into quantum physics, and from the on to string theory, and from then to something else.
It seems infinitely regressive, and it all depends basically on how the universe chooses between "1" and "0".

Which is another thing altogether, determinism versus indeterminism etc.

 

[Orefa]

You approach the problem from an engineering point of view by wondering if it can be reverse-engineered, programmed, etc. I think you can simplify. There are only two possibilities.

Possibility 1: your mind follows cause-and-effect relationships. If so then everything you think is the causal result of previous states and you function as an automated device so you don't have free will.

Possibility 2: your mind does not follow cause-and-effect relationships. If so then what you think does not depend on previous states so your mind can spontaneously have one thought or another thought regardless of previous states. But if your mind acts spontaneously then you are not controlling it, so you don't have free will.

 

[octelcogopod]

You approach the problem from an engineering point of view by wondering if it can be reverse-engineered, programmed, etc. I think you can simplify. There are only two possibilities.

Possibility 1: your mind follows cause-and-effect relationships. If so then everything you think is the causal result of previous states and you function as an automated device so you don't have free will.

Possibility 2: your mind does not follow cause-and-effect relationships. If so then what you think does not depend on previous states so your mind can spontaneously have one thought or another thought regardless of previous states. But if your mind acts spontaneously then you are not controlling it, so you don't have free will.

Yeah exactly.. Which is why I have my theory that free will is an emergent property of determinism and consciousness, we DO have a choice because we can consciously analyze the choices. What happens on the lower levels is irrelevant as long as we are consciously aware of our choices.

I hope that's not too off topic though.

 

[RVBuckeye]

Well, unless the consciousness is outside the laws of physics, then by logic alone it is confined to the laws of physics, which means all choices could be predicted. (Unless of course this is an indeterministic universe and the rules of physics change at random.)

I think that it could still be possible to fit in the laws of physics and still have the property of "B" as stated above. (if the programing allows for a choice between a set of terms, ie. rand(1,6)). Or would that defy the laws of physics?

Whether or not the programmer can determine the outcome depends on the depth he researches the issue.
For instance I can do rand(1,6) and it would spit out a random number between, to me as a programmer I wouldn't know HOW it did that unless I dug into how the rand function was built.
If I built the rand function I presume I would use some sort of algorhithm or some such, but then again, I would still not know how the algorhithm chooses the numbers. So I would have to go into machine code, or assembly as it's called, and then go from there.
But not even that would give me an answer, so i would have to go into the circuitry, and "follow the current" so to speak.
But not even that would give me the answer I was looking for, so I'd have to go into quantum physics, and from the on to string theory, and from then to something else.
It seems infinitely regressive, and it all depends basically on how the universe chooses between "1" and "0".

In a nutshell, this answers the question of whether the programmer could know the outcome. I believe you are saying, "There is no way the programmer could know what number rand(1,6) will evoke." (at least, when he wrote the program). Good, that at least helps in justifying my other questions.

You approach the problem from an engineering point of view by wondering if it can be reverse-engineered, programmed, etc. I think you can simplify. There are only two possibilities.

Possibility 1: your mind follows cause-and-effect relationships. If so then everything you think is the causal result of previous states and you function as an automated device so you don't have free will.

Possibility 2: your mind does not follow cause-and-effect relationships. If so then what you think does not depend on previous states so your mind can spontaneously have one thought or another thought regardless of previous states. But if your mind acts spontaneously then you are not controlling it, so you don't have free will.

I think I understand what you are saying. Although I'm not sure which of those two you see yourself in. Is it too much of a stretch to think that we are just as you say in possibillity 1, but as you break down our programming to it's simplest levels, we find an equation such as rand(1,6)? Since, at least by our understanding of computer programming, this equation, is asking for a free-will choice. (by definition using Funk and Wagnalls dictionary under "free-will", and further, "voluntary"). I know we are speaking in hypotheticals here, but the two scenarios you propose are more what I think how my dog behaves, not so much a human.

Yeah exactly.. Which is why I have my theory that free will is an emergent property of determinism and consciousness, we DO have a choice because we can consciously analyze the choices. What happens on the lower levels is irrelevant as long as we are consciously aware of our choices.

I hope that's not too off topic though

I believe we DO have a choice as well, just trying to figure out whether it is an illusion or not. Where I differ is that what happens on the lower levels is irrelevant because it will never be able to predict the outcome of human behavior. I certainly don't think it's off topic, so please, do tell or link to a previous post where you have discussed it.

 

[octelcogopod]

In my opinion determinism must be in place otherwise there would/could be chaos, even from inside the system.
What we see around us never changes, and hasn't for many years.
While people speak of indeterminism on smaller scales, I do not believe this to be so, because any system capable of indeterminism would deteriorate and increase entropy level for every second.

This is because in such a system, it is my belief that over a long enough timeline, there would be nothing but random events unconnected to each other left.
We have seen no such indication in this universe.

So then, it is also my belief that we must have determinism for free will to work.
Determinism let's us make the choices we want to make, and it doesn't interrupt us with random events in order to do so.
It follows a straight predictable pattern where one event leads to the next.

Now, it seems to me that we are aware of our free will, we are aware that we are capable of making choices.
In my opinion this really settles the free will debate, because we are aware of it ourselves.
Also, and this is maybe going too deep, but if consciousness is physical in nature, and the qualia is physical(if basically everything in the universe can be observed and predicted physically), then the ideas we have of our free will, is also a part of the universe.
I mean everything inside the universe, has to be connected to the universe in some way, and thus it is a part of it.
Regardless of whether it is "physical" or not, as we know physical.
So to me, the awareness we have of our surroundings, makes it so free will is maybe not physical, but it's a real part of the universe, it's not an illusion, not a pseudo "thing."

Many people argue that "yeah but what if we can determine everything and see into the future or something, because I mean if everything follows cause and effect, given enough time and research, you could know "everything."
And to this I reply that, at this point, we just don't know.
If the universe is built on cause and effect, then finding the smallest possible cause is essential, but even if we do that, the computing power needed to even process the path of a ball with this math would be extreme to non existant.
So practically I don't see anyone doing it for a few years..

But philosophically? I don't know.. Nobody knows right now if it's possible to determine everything given enough time and research, and nobody knows if it's impossible either.
But we can at least give these two options;

1. If the universe is deterministic, then there is possibly a way to determine human choice and/or everything.
2. If the universe is indeterministic then there is no way, cause true randomness is impossible to predict, but I strongly disbelieve that this exists in our universe.

 

[RVBuckeye]

1. If the universe is deterministic, then there is possibly a way to determine human choice and/or everything.
2. If the universe is indeterministic then there is no way, cause true randomness is impossible to predict, but I strongly disbelieve that this exists in our universe.

You are confusing me here. On one hand you seem to be saying that you believe everything is based on cause and effect. (which means free-will was inevitable from the start). Yet on the other, free-will, by its very nature, is unpredictable. By the mere fact that we are aware of our own free-will means that indeterministic behavior actually does exist in the universe. Which rules out scenario one as being possible. Maybe you could clarify this for me.

Is there not evidence that order comes from chaos? Certainly there is evidence that this does not, in and of itself, lead to more chaos. I seem to think that the universe has a way to balance itself out again. Isn't it more likely than not, when you break it down the programming of our brain to its smallest code, that randomness is a built in feature? What would make you think that this possibility somehow contradicts some natural order?

 

[selfAdjoint]

I just want to put in here, regarding the original question, that the "random number" algorithms used in computers, and in that TI-81, are not really random but deterministic. But they have a period much larger than the number of digits on the calculator so it's very unlikely you would ever notice this. It's random enough for all practical purposes. It's possible to believe that the human mind is that way too - really deterministic underneath, but free enough for human purposes.

 

[octelcogopod]

You are confusing me here. On one hand you seem to be saying that you believe everything is based on cause and effect. (which means free-will was inevitable from the start). Yet on the other, free-will, by its very nature, is unpredictable. By the mere fact that we are aware of our own free-will means that indeterministic behavior actually does exist in the universe. Which rules out scenario one as being possible. Maybe you could clarify this for me.

When I talk about determinism versus indeterminism, I mean the most basic building block in the universe, and nothing else.
Strings, quarks, whatever is the most basic buildling block.
What happens on the higher levels like consciousnes and awareness does not tell us that indeterminism exists, we can only look to the smallest of scales, the most basic and fundamental building block, to see that ti does.

Is there not evidence that order comes from chaos? Certainly there is evidence that this does not, in and of itself, lead to more chaos. I seem to think that the universe has a way to balance itself out again. Isn't it more likely than not, when you break it down the programming of our brain to its smallest code, that randomness is a built in feature? What would make you think that this possibility somehow contradicts some natural order?

I would think that true chaos, true indeterminism, woukld exponentially grow throughout the system.
Any kind of system needs to police itself, in some way, it needs to control itself to be able to keep functioning, and this in itself tells us that indeterminism cannot exist.
You can't control a random event, it's just not possible.
A true random event has NO cause at all.
You can imagine this.

A random event does not have a cause, but it does have an effect.
If you've heard of the butterfly effect, this is kind of what I think would happen.
Because the event itself would be uncaused by anything, but it would have severe side effects in the system, depending on what kind of effect it has.
I sort of see the random events as a virus, or a cancer, eating tiself through the deterministic universe until there is nothing left.

This is just my opinion though, from logic, my logic could be flawed so I urge others to tell me it is so.

 

[RVBuckeye]

When I talk about determinism versus indeterminism, I mean the most basic building block in the universe, and nothing else.
Strings, quarks, whatever is the most basic buildling block.
What happens on the higher levels like consciousnes and awareness does not tell us that indeterminism exists, we can only look to the smallest of scales, the most basic and fundamental building block, to see that it does.

See, that is where I am at a disadvantage in this argument because I'm sort of a "late-bloomer" in the quantum physics aspect. I've read some books by Steven Hawking on his theories of the universe, and he touched on string theory and such, but I kind of missed the stuff leading up to the theory. So I'm kind of playing catch-up in that aspect of your argument.

I would think that true chaos, true indeterminism, woukld exponentially grow throughout the system.
Any kind of system needs to police itself, in some way, it needs to control itself to be able to keep functioning, and this in itself tells us that indeterminism cannot exist.
You can't control a random event, it's just not possible.
A true random event has NO cause at all.
You can imagine this.

A random event does not have a cause, but it does have an effect.
If you've heard of the butterfly effect, this is kind of what I think would happen.
Because the event itself would be uncaused by anything, but it would have severe side effects in the system, depending on what kind of effect it has.
I sort of see the random events as a virus, or a cancer, eating tiself through the deterministic universe until there is nothing left.

Maybe I don't share your view of the butterfly effect. As it was first proposed in relation to the weather, it suggests that even a butterfly flapping its wings could alter weather patterns. Even if this is true, let's suppose that the butterfly did it of its own free-will, and it was a truly indeterministic event, why do you think that one single flap would cause the weather to grow exponentially out of control? It seems logical to me that there are other deterministic factors that would prevent this. (like water temperature, cloud cover, position of the moon, etc). Not that there is anything controlling it other than other deterministic aspects of physics. For example, when we landed on the moon, we didn't knock the moonout of its orbit, the moon isn't showing signs of slowing down, or falling towards earth, so why would allowing for indeterministic behavior to exist mean that chaos would ensue.

Certainly, after re-reading what I wrote, if you had enough concentrated indeterministic events, you could cause chaos, but will it ever be enough to send it over the brink? We could send a nuclear bomb up and destroy the moon, which would cause chaos on a local level. Some chunks of debris could fly off to some distant galaxy, and I will give you it may even alter the future events on a distant planet. But, isn't there enough mass out there in the galaxy to eventually absorb even that event? Or do you think that it will cause the entire universe to eventually collapse?

I don't know if any of that makes sense, but in a nutshell. I don't rule out the probability of both deterministic and indeterministic events. I know I'm trying really hard to protect the ability of free will that I think I have. It seems that you are saying that the universe is 100% deterministic, then there is a 0% chance that free-will is real. My gut tells me this is not so, and trying to convince my gut...

 

[selfAdjoint]

It's really hard to consider the scientific side of these arguments without knowing what the scientific assertions are. On the other hand, the more you learn about quantum mechanics and relativity - and relativistic quantum mechanics! - the hazier the free will picture gets. It's all about interactions, and they aren't deterministic, they are sort of constrained random. That is your interaction gives a range of choices, just as a roulette wheel does, and one of those choices will happen, but you don't know which one. But this picture only happens commonly at the atomic scale. Although experiments have been done to make it happen at our scale, they are very special cases. So take it from there.

Also check out threads on Libet's research. Your brain knows what you are going to decide before you do.

 

[Orion1]

Indeterminate Determination...

To get more to the point, one of the functions was asking the computer to display a random number between 1 and 6. Now, I have a few questions as I am unclear whether the original programmer who wrote the original code for the calculator could know, in advance, what number it would choose?

RVBUCKEYE, It just happens that I have an original TI-81 calculator.

Try this experiment:

I. Remove the lithium memory battery from your calculator. (CR1616 or CR1620)

II. With the remaining 4 AAA batteries, turn the calculator on, then remove the far right AAA battery, wait a moment, then replace the battery, press the 'on' key then '2nd+up arrow' to contrast the display. The display should say 'mem cleared' (memory cleared).

III. Now press the 'math' key then 'left arrow' key to highlight 'PRB' (probability) on the display, then press either the '1' key or the 'enter' key and the math term 'Rand' should appear on the screen. 'Rand' is short for the random function, basicly the calculators 'indeterminate probability' or 'free will'.

IV. Now if a calculator has the ability of indeterminate probability or 'free will', pressing the 'enter' key four times in a row should never display the same four random numbers, indicated on the display here: (listed here to only 4 decimal places)

.9435
.9083
.1466
.5147

Now, repeating steps II to IV what does the display indicate?

The calculator will display the same set of four numbers, meaning that there is no real calculational 'random function', any calculators 'indeterminate probabilities' are ALL pre-determined (determinate) from a list of numbers hard encoded on that calculators microchip, a ROM.

Therefore, a perfect calculator is not capable of indeterminism (free will), or any other computer for that matter because they always follow a set of pre-determined instructions.

I just want to put in here, regarding the original question, that the "random number" algorithms used in computers, and in that TI-81, are not really random but deterministic.

 

[octelcogopod]

See, that is where I am at a disadvantage in this argument because I'm sort of a "late-bloomer" in the quantum physics aspect. I've read some books by Steven Hawking on his theories of the universe, and he touched on string theory and such, but I kind of missed the stuff leading up to the theory. So I'm kind of playing catch-up in that aspect of your argument.



Maybe I don't share your view of the butterfly effect. As it was first proposed in relation to the weather, it suggests that even a butterfly flapping its wings could alter weather patterns. Even if this is true, let's suppose that the butterfly did it of its own free-will, and it was a truly indeterministic event, why do you think that one single flap would cause the weather to grow exponentially out of control? It seems logical to me that there are other deterministic factors that would prevent this. (like water temperature, cloud cover, position of the moon, etc). Not that there is anything controlling it other than other deterministic aspects of physics. For example, when we landed on the moon, we didn't knock the moonout of its orbit, the moon isn't showing signs of slowing down, or falling towards earth, so why would allowing for indeterministic behavior to exist mean that chaos would ensue.

Certainly, after re-reading what I wrote, if you had enough concentrated indeterministic events, you could cause chaos, but will it ever be enough to send it over the brink? We could send a nuclear bomb up and destroy the moon, which would cause chaos on a local level. Some chunks of debris could fly off to some distant galaxy, and I will give you it may even alter the future events on a distant planet. But, isn't there enough mass out there in the galaxy to eventually absorb even that event? Or do you think that it will cause the entire universe to eventually collapse?

I don't know if any of that makes sense, but in a nutshell. I don't rule out the probability of both deterministic and indeterministic events. I know I'm trying really hard to protect the ability of free will that I think I have. It seems that you are saying that the universe is 100% deterministic, then there is a 0% chance that free-will is real. My gut tells me this is not so, and trying to convince my gut...

I'm not ruling it out strictly, I'm just saying, in a system where indeterminism is possible, it seems to me that it would spin out of control, because by definition indeterministic events ARE out of control.

Also, I'm saying the exact opposite; free will is only possible in a deterministic universe.
I explained part of it in an earlier post, but, determinism doesn't interfere with the higher consciousness, it let's it live and do as it pleases; consciousness is an emergent property of the physical properties.

 

[|Orion's Thought|]

I don't believe it is free choice, because the programmer does know what the outcome will be, it will be whatever the user decides to put into the calculator to get an outcome following the rules set for it by the programmer.
I have a TI-80, so hah!

 

[tony873004]

The calculator will display the same set of four numbers, meaning that there is no real calculational 'random function', any calculators 'indeterminate probabilities' are ALL pre-determined (determinate) from a list of numbers hard encoded on that calculators microchip, a ROM.

A way around this would be if the programmer seeded the random number generator with a timed event, such as number of cycles elapsed from powerup until you press the Random button.

It's still not truly random though. If you take the exact same amount of time in two separate trial runs, you should get the same answer.

 

[selfAdjoint]

A way around this would be if the programmer seeded the random number generator with a timed event, such as number of cycles elapsed from powerup until you press the Random button.

It's still not truly random though. If you take the exact same amount of time in two separate trial runs, you should get the same answer.

Many (pseudo)random number generating algorithms take a "seed", a starting number that you feed into them to determine what numbers they will return. If you use the same seed two times in a row you will get the same sequence of "random" numbers. Many software programs using such a generator will get the seed from the last few digits of the clock time (so, some current number of milliseconds since the last second tick). This pretty much guarantees you won't get duplicate sequances iin the same invocation of the program. Does the calculator even have a clock?

 

[Orion1]

Texas Timer...

Does the calculator even have a clock?

Negative, however it does have a 'timer' based upon its CPU frequency:
2 Mhz (ZiLOG Z80 CPU).

UNDOCUMENTED FEATURES:
'[TEST][ALPHA]'

WARNING: After entering the above key sequence, DO NOT PRESS ENTER! If you do, your calculator's memory will be erased during the self-test sequence. Press any other key to exit back harmlessly.

Known ROM versions: 1.1, 2.0

When I tried this on my TI-81, it did not state a ROM version, the display stated:
Self-test? 1.8K

The 1.8K appears to be my available RAM memory, however the reference states that it should be 2.4K RAM. However this is probably because I have removed my Lithium memory battery.

Pressing [enter] starts some type of check sequence and the display shows a number starting with zero counting up in the center screen.

'[TEST][ALPHA]' also clears the main memory and effectively replaces step II in my T1-81 Rand experiment listed above.

This seems to be some type of diagnostic cycle that was never published. I believe each number represents a different function performed on the calculators CPU and main board.

T1-81 Rand experiment:
II. press '[ON][TEST][ALPHA][ENTER][OFF]', press the 'on' key then '2nd+up arrow' to contrast the display. The display should say 'mem cleared' (memory cleared).

III. Now press the 'math' key then 'left arrow' key to highlight 'PRB' (probability) on the display, then press either the '1' key or the 'enter' key and the math term 'Rand' should appear on the screen.

IV. pressing the 'enter' key four times in a row will display the same set of four numbers.

The most simple program to access the CPU frequency is using the 'counter' program and a 'stopwatch':

Prgm1: N
0 -> N
Lbl 1
(N + 1) -> N
If (N = 1000)
End
Goto 1

stopwatch - 4 trials
1 00:07 52 7.52 s
2 00:07 52
3 00:07 55
4 00:07 62

average: 7.55 s

Considering that each 'count' is equivalent to three basic operations:

The number of basic operations per second is:
N_s = 3(1000)/7.55 s = 3000/7.55 s = 397.351 operations/s

N_s = 397.351 operations/s

397.351 basic operations/second on a 2 Mhz ZiLOG Z80 CPU with 1.8K RAM memory. (with optimum AAA batteries)

Note that this timer is by no means 'linear' as different functional operational sophistication will produce different CPU timing results.

Check out the 'turbo' method in the second reference, claims to be able to overclock the CPU up to 6 Mhz!

I performed this 'turbo' test on my calculator.

After initially turning it on, I noticed a dramatic improvement in the display contrast. The contrast was much darker on lower contrast settings.

The diagnostic check was also much faster and the calculator keys were entered faster and more responsive and graphing was three times faster!

'count' program with 'stopwatch':

stopwatch - 4 trials
1 00:02 53 2.53 s
2 00:02 45
3 00:02 53
4 00:02 55

average: 2.51

N_s = 3(1000)/2.51 s = 3000/2.51 s = 1195.219 operations/s

N_s = 1195.219 operations/s

M_s = 1195.219/397.351 = 3.008
M_s = 3.008

1195.219 basic operations/second on a 6 Mhz ZiLOG Z80 CPU with 1.8K RAM memory. (with optimum AAA batteries)

Simply removing capacitor C9 increased the number of operations per second by magnitude 3 (3x faster), very cool!

Reference:
http://www.ticalc.org/basics/calculators/ti-81.html
http://richfiles.solarbotics.net/Turbo81.html

 

[RVBuckeye]

Negative, however it does have a 'timer' based upon its CPU frequency:
2 Mhz (ZiLOG Z80 CPU).

Wow! You really went out of your way to answer my question. Thank you. I was able to find my TI-81 but unfortunately the batteries have been in it for over 13 years. Needless to say, I don't think it will recover with all the battery acid that has oozed into it. If you applied this to the human brain, you could be famous.

Well, I guess that answers the original question of the thread. Fear not, I have more. Maybe it might be appropriate for a new topic though.

It's really hard to consider the scientific side of these arguments without knowing what the scientific assertions are. On the other hand, the more you learn about quantum mechanics and relativity - and relativistic quantum mechanics! - the hazier the free will picture gets. It's all about interactions, and they aren't deterministic, they are sort of constrained random. That is your interaction gives a range of choices, just as a roulette wheel does, and one of those choices will happen, but you don't know which one. But this picture only happens commonly at the atomic scale. Although experiments have been done to make it happen at our scale, they are very special cases. So take it from there.

Also check out threads on Libet's research. Your brain knows what you are going to decide before you do

Let me give you a little analogy for my lack of scientific assertions. I have a child who is in the questioning phase. Trying to explain things to a child can be frustrating sometimes, but other times it makes you realize that you don't know as much as you thought you did. Or that you hadn't looked at it that way before. (such as how many people truly knew the answer to my original question about the TI-81, and if they did, how many knew how it did it?)

I'll get better with my scientific assertions as I gain more knowledge of certain subjects, just be patient with me please. However, when people suggest theories, I do my best to research them. Such as Libet.

In the statement I made about blowing up the moon, I'm talking about gravity in general would eventually nullify the effects of the moons destruction, in relation to the functioning of the entire universe as a whole. The point I was trying to make was that if blowing up the moon was purely an act of a humans free-will, (it wouldn't have spontaneously blown-up, at that specific time, unless humans were invovled), I maintain that the universe would survive more or less unaffected as a whole. (but would be chaotic for our solar system, but not so much for the milky way, and insignificant to the universe). I still maintain that this would contradict this statement made by octelcogopod, if the decision to destroy the moon was made of a humans-free will:

I'm not ruling it out strictly, I'm just saying, in a system where indeterminism is possible, it seems to me that it would spin out of control, because by definition indeterministic events ARE out of control.

As far as Libets research goes, I thought it was interesting but I'm not sold as definitive proof that free-will is non-existant. You do seem to drop his name a lot selfAdjoint, or should we call you... Libet?

 

[selfAdjoint]

As far as Libets research goes, I thought it was interesting but I'm not sold as definitive proof that free-will is non-existant. You do seem to drop his name a lot selfAdjoint, or should we call you... Libet?

No, I am not Libet! I cite his research because it is the classic experiment that really challenges the concept of free will. It shocked Libet himself and he tried desperately to come up with a way of saving free will, but most of his colleagues don't think he succeeded. I've posted that before too. I am going to keep posting about it as long as people here think they can just assume free will without looking at the literature.

 

[RVBuckeye]

No, I am not Libet! I cite his research because it is the classic experiment that really challenges the concept of free will. It shocked Libet himself and he tried desperately to come up with a way of saving free will, but most of his colleagues don't think he succeeded. I've posted that before too. I am going to keep posting about it as long as people here think they can just assume free will without looking at the literature.

I agree it does make you stop and think for a second. I understand he tried to explain that we have "veto" power over the signal. As stated by many people in various threads, there are just too many ways to explain it away. I don't think you mean to suggest this as definitive proof that free-will doesn't exist. But for me, it does put one notch in the "no free-will" column.

 

[kcballer21]

Consider that the brain, or mind... or nervous system, is just a processing device that processes information that is fed to it, much like a contempory computer would do. The difference would be that the human brain processes information using a different and more complex method than computers, namely using a neural net with massive parallel processing capabilities and a much different memory storage system. (which is something like a matching system, with cues that bring up related memory events) Now if we ASSUME that the brain/mind is an entirely physical (ie, explainable) thing, then sooner or later a synthetic version will or could be developed (it was developed by evolution at least) and either we will have to say that it has free will, or that we don't. Even if consciousness operates under quantum principles, that doesn't exclude machines from operating/thinking the same way. my guess is that free will is what it is, not what we want it to be.

 

[Tom McCurdy]

Random numbers do not have any influence of a computer having free will. Random in a computer is an illusion, based on a algorithm

 

[Tournesol]

Not necessarily

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

 

[pinkumbra]

Not necessarily

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

Even the hardware random number generator isn't, well, random. It's just improbable based on what we can measure (or want to measure), and possibly improbable beyond our realm of understanding. The former is more practical to most because the latter suggests that we have a warped understanding of what is real and what isn't.

 

[loseyourname]

Couldn't we, in principle, create something akin to a truly random number generator using quantum effects? Say, set up a piece of radioactive material inside of a box capable of detecting decay particles, such that a different number is generated depending upon where the particle is detected. Heck, we could even implant some device of this sort into a computer or robot and use it to generate non-deterministic behavior.

Applying this to the original question asked, I still don't see how this could be considered free will. Bound up with the notion of free will is the concept of agency, that any being with free will exercises a level of control over its own behavior. A computer/robot of this sort, even if it were behaving non-deterministically, would have no control over what it was doing. In fact, it seems that only by inserting specific programming could this being exercise any control over its own behavior. It almost seems as if you can have one or the other - either freedom or will - but not both.

My own notion of what people seem to mean when they refer to their own free will is a capacity, which they believe humans to have, to make a decision resulting in behavior that runs contrary to what biological determinants would produce without the intervention of that decision-making process. Of course, this would imply that the decision-making process is not itself biologically determined, which would defeat the whole purpose and simply be negative regulation.

Perhaps the most currently popular formulation of human free will involves downward causation, the notion that the entities created of constituent parts can exert genuine causal power. For instance, the molecules in your brain behave a certain way because you feel a certain way, rather than vice versa. I don't enough about physics at the subatomic level to be able to say, but I would think one runs into a problem in that any manifestation of downward causation such as this in the brain, tantamount to free will, would violate the law of conservation of momentum, as the atoms that cascade through your neurons to eventually create muscle movement and macroscopic behavior on your part, would have to behave in a manner that they otherwise would not if they were simply in an isolated neuron, rather than in the brain of a human person.

 

[Orion1]

'breaking silently'...

set up a piece of radioactive material inside of a box capable of detecting decay particles, such that a different number is generated depending upon where the particle is detected.

Quantum Random Generator: (i.e.) A nuclear decay radiation source detected by a Geiger counter attached to a PC. (considered to be the gold standard for randomness.)

A problem with using quantum devices to produce indeterminate numbers is the problem of 'breaking silently':

As the radioactive intensity decreases, its sensor will be required to compensate, not an easily accomplished task. Failure modes in such devices are plentiful and are neither easy nor quick nor cheap to detect.

'Breaking silently' may be a 'determinately intrinsic' property of quantum random generators, as such devices would always require some form of 'compensative detector'.

Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_random_number_generator

 

[RVBuckeye]

Are you saying that the randomness is lost because the geiger counter has a high failure rate or that failure is due to radioactive decay of the "seed" number or "timed event"? If it's the latter, couldn't you get around this by having each instance a choice is made, the geiger counter gets its' information from a different source? That seems plausible to me since humans are mobile.

To some up my rationalle thus far...The world shows both deteministic and indeterministic properties as we see things now. (maybe it seems indeterministic because we don't have theory of everything, but when we do we might see everything as deterministic). Now, assuming that our brains might have some way of detecting random (or seemingly random due to lack of TOE) quantum events. Could we, by our mobility, have another feature which draws our "seed" number from a different quantum source each time a "free-wil" decision is made? (to maintan randomness). Or is this second feature not necessay because it still wouldn't make it truley random or indeterministic? (due to the probablility that we would also be able to predict what the source is as well)

OK, one more question. What feature would our brains have to posess to create a truly random, indeterministic choice?

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

Are you saying that the randomness is lost because the geiger counter has a high failure rate or that failure is due to radioactive decay of the "seed" number or "timed event"? If it's the latter, couldn't you get around this by having each instance a choice is made, the geiger counter gets its' information from a different source? That seems plausible to me since humans are mobile.

To some up my rationalle thus far...The world shows both deteministic and indeterministic properties as we see things now. (maybe it seems indeterministic because we don't have theory of everything, but when we do we might see everything as deterministic). Now, assuming that our brains might have some way of detecting random (or seemingly random due to lack of TOE) quantum events. Could we, by our mobility, have another feature which draws our "seed" number from a different quantum source each time a "free-wil" decision is made? (to maintan randomness). Or is this second feature not necessay because it still wouldn't make it truley random or indeterministic? (due to the probablility that we would also be able to predict what the source is as well)

OK, one more question. What feature would our brains have to posess to create a truly random, indeterministic choice?

'Ramdomly' (mispel left for effect) swinging our hammer is not an effectively efficient means for striking the nail on the head; we need to take aim to develop this skill.

‘Randomness’ like ‘god’ is a term we use to describe events for which we have not yet determined all of the cause and effect relationships leading to it; in short it does not exist in reality.

What really matters is not where or who we come from or that as humans we have a great potential for affecting change. It is what we do which is determined by the choices we make which are in turn determined by what we believe. We may never be able to ground all that we believe in reality but our success in basing our knowledge on what is real is how we diminish the ‘random’ events which determine our individual outcomes.

To answer your question, ignorance.

 

[RVBuckeye]

To answer your question, ignorance.

We got plenty of that.

Let me state first that my interest in the subject is in no way to foster a belief in a god. I'm perfectly happy with the universes deterministic nature validating the opposite. (and it is doing a good job). I still entertain the notion that there might still be an indetrministic (randomness) nature allowed, to a dramatically lesser extent, without causing the universe to become chaotic. How it came about could be from deterministic means via some type of evolution. ( I don't know, I don't have enough knowledge on the subject to prove it. That's why I post questions.) But that could happen without a god's intervention, imo. I guess I have a hard time accepting as a fact that everything is deterministic, because I don't want to believe what that means if it is true. (in regards to my ego).

I guess ignorance is bliss.

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

We got plenty of that.

Let me state first that my interest in the subject is in no way to foster a belief in a god. I'm perfectly happy with the universes deterministic nature validating the opposite. (and it is doing a good job). I still entertain the notion that there might still be an indetrministic (randomness) nature allowed, to a dramatically lesser extent, without causing the universe to become chaotic. How it came about could be from deterministic means via some type of evolution. ( I don't know, I don't have enough knowledge on the subject to prove it. That's why I post questions.) But that could happen without a god's intervention, imo. I guess I have a hard time accepting as a fact that everything is deterministic, because I don't want to believe what that means if it is true. (in regards to my ego).

I guess ignorance is bliss.

I bet you've heard this one too:
Love is blind but marriage is a real eye opener.

Ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of, or wallowed in. It is what we as humans have to put up with until we learn otherwise. We should take pride in what we do know and enjoy learning more because it is something we can certainly say is ours and we have earned it, no less thanks to those before us who have paved the way.

 

[RVBuckeye]

serendipity

We should take pride in what we do know and enjoy learning more because it is something we can certainly say is ours and we have earned it, no less thanks to those before us who have paved the way.

But have "we" earned it? Being that you and I are just mental constructs of our brain having no control over our actions. (as I would see as true in a 100% deterministic universe). Wouldn't things have happened exactly as they have happened since the beginning of time, if the tape was re-played from the beginning? That means you and I would have happened, reguardless of your or my "ego self" being involved. Which also means that the future is already pre-determined as-well.

So I guess I still maintain "hope" that there can arise a being with true free-will from a deterministic universe. That being doesn't neccessarily, automatically assume there is a "universal God". I'd be much happier if you and I were each thought of as "God's of our bodies" (so to speak). At least, for once, it would make people realize that they have control and are ultimately responsible for their own actions. It might be the thing that connects us all in the quest to affect change on the world for the better.

I have "no hope" that a better world would arise in a 100% deterministic universe. Humanity is capable of great things, no doubt, but I see the balance shifting to ultimate destruction. If humanity was destined to tip the balance and survive on, what would it really matter in the eventual outcome of the physical universe? Human kind and our consciousness are as insignificant as two asteroids bumping into each other in a distant galaxie. Just a blip in the evolution of the universe. Even if your "hope" is that humanity will turn it around and is destined for greater things...arent we hoping for the same thing? What's the use of hope in a deterministic universe?

Disclaimer: These are only my thoughts at the time I typed them, and are subject to change based on additional knowledge.