The Neuroscience of Free Will: Believing in a Soul or Something Else?

[JoeDawg]

Regarding subjective experience not being objectifiable ("measurable by an objective viewer"), I think that its objectifiability is demonstrated in the coordination of our collective behavior. Think of a stop light as measuring the objectiveness or similarity of our subjective experiences of the colors green and red. Well, for most drivers anyway.

Your example is more about consensus than objectivity. Drivers agree to follow rules.
Objectivity is more about assessing something without the prejudice of perspective.

Which makes relativity a total bugger.

Objectivity is an ideal, not a reality. But science has a number of strategies that are at least somewhat convincing with regards approaching objectivity.

 

[Pythagorean]

Pythagorean, 'choosing our choices' seems to be based on the physical processes of the brain; the 'computations' that unfold. If not, what then is doing the choosing? It would require a little mystical man or agent inside of the brain that is making that choice. Even top-down principles fall apart as this would require the 'choosing' to be separate from the physical processing, something beyond it.

No, it wouldn't require a mystical man or agent in the brain. I'm in no way suggesting a Cartesian Theater. In fact, to paraphrase Daniel Dennett, I think a successful theory of consciousness will take the foreman out of the factory. Treat the brain as a machine, a system like the weather.

Let me present you with a question. Do you think a single photon in the double-slit experiment "choose" which slit they go through in the same way we make decisions?

Ugh, 'predetermined' is an ugly useless word. If its predetermined, its determined.
Again the language problem
I think decisions are determined by our histories.
But reducing it to input/output is a reductionist oversimplification, however.
Freewill depends on determinism.
I can't choose an action, if every choice ends in a random result.

The fact you made a choice doesn't mean you didn't have a choice.
And the fact you can predict a choice doesn't mean you don't have a choice.

Random vs determined is not the issue.
And stating that one must be 'completely free' or 'not free at all' is a false dichotomy.

Freedom is about autonomy, its about our degree of separateness from the complex system that we inhabit.

true, free will would depend on "determinism", but I don't think I'm talking about the philosophy determinism.

What I'm arguing is that our process from input to output is no different then a rock (when thrown in the air) "deciding" to head back towards Earth. It's just a much more complicated process.

I also don't really believe there's any dichotomy here either. In fact, I think it's least probable that we are either entirely free or not free at all. Ultimately, I believe free will (and it's apparent opposite) are both products of our imagination. A byproduct of the limitation of words in communication between two or more parties.

 

[WhoWee]

What I'm arguing is that our process from input to output is no different then a rock (when thrown in the air) "deciding" to head back towards Earth. It's just a much more complicated process.

I also don't really believe there's any dichotomy here either. In fact, I think it's least probable that we are either entirely free or not free at all. Ultimately, I believe free will (and it's apparent opposite) are both products of our imagination. A byproduct of the limitation of words in communication between two or more parties.

It does appear that we are all programmed with the same basic operating system. Multiple subroutines begin pre-birth and some "decisions" are purely reactive and subconscious.

As a baby develops thought is "trained" by experience, organizational processes, discipline, weighting of importance and grouping of inputted information. Accordingly, some brains are trained and operated better than others.

Like computers, some brains seem to operate with greater processing and/or memory capacity.

However, I can make the same observations about my cats and puppies.

We all need to breathe, pump blood and digest food. I choose to use simple words. We all shape our arguments to enforce our opinions.

Thought processes are clearly computer-like. However, personality, imagination and inspiration are much harder to evaluate, prove, and dismiss as rudimentary.

 

[ThomasT]

Your example is more about consensus than objectivity. Drivers agree to follow rules.
Objectivity is more about assessing something without the prejudice of perspective.

The hypothesis is that we humans detect and process stimuli in essentially the same way. An objective test of this is to observe the behavior of drivers wrt traffic signals.

We see that the behavior of drivers wrt traffic signals is extremely predictable. The conclusion, wrt this and other sorts of public behavior that's coordinated vis various conventions, and the fact that we can communicate at all, is that we detect and process stimuli in essentially the same way, and that there is a world external to all of us that has certain universal properties. The discovery and communication of those properties requires that we follow certain rules, adhere to certain conventions.

Which makes relativity a total bugger.

Not really. The success of special relativity is further evidence of the commonality of our detection and processing faculties, and the universality of certain aspects of the physical world. SR is a set of definitions and conventions based in part on the assumptions that we get all of our information about the world via the electromagnetic field, and that we all detect and process that info (em stimuli) in basically the same way. If we weren't part(s) of an absolute physical reality evolving independently of frames of reference, then theories of it, and in fact any meaningful communication at all between us, would be impossible.

Objectivity is an ideal, not a reality. But science has a number of strategies that are at least somewhat convincing with regards approaching objectivity.

I think I agree with you on this.

 

[JoeDawg]

What I'm arguing is that our process from input to output is no different then a rock (when thrown in the air) "deciding" to head back towards Earth. It's just a much more complicated process.

Ah, but think of it this way. When you are 'throwing the rock in the air', you are actually accelerating rock molecules in a certain direction. The acceleration will depend, among other things, on how solid the rock substance is, and how much resistance is given by the air.

'Throwing' the same amount of individual rock molecules (rock dusk) in the air will produce a different result (and probably coughing). So its not just, input A = output B, the structure and complexity of the 'object' effects the result. To a certain degree this is purely a definitional problem... rock vs rock dust...

But objects that are part of a system act and react differently, than objects in an individual context. The more complex the system, the more dependencies, the more change in the way each individual acts.

Ultimately, I believe free will (and it's apparent opposite) are both products of our imagination. A byproduct of the limitation of words in communication between two or more parties.

I think the way people have defined freewill in the past has been problematic, I think much of what we do is on the level of simple programming, but I do think the autonomy implicit in objects, the distinctiveness and separateness of being, allows for a level of freedom.

 

[cam875]

if you conducted an experiment twice exactly the same, technically without QM you would get the exact same results. Obviously its impossible to conduct an experiment twice exactly the same since in your examples you gave variables that are constantly changing. I think that's what gives us the illusion of free will, the variables are always changing and giving us different outcomes to similar tasks.

 

[ThomasT]

In fact, to paraphrase Daniel Dennett, I think a successful theory of consciousness will take the foreman out of the factory. Treat the brain as a machine, a system like the weather.

I think we can predict our behavior much better (most of the time anyway) than we can predict the weather. Try producing a thunderstorm using operant conditioning.

Our behavior, and the internal and external systems and dynamics that determine it, emerges from maybe a single fundamental dynamic. But there's no way to explain or understand or control our behavior in terms of this fundamental dynamic. The complexity arising out of countless iterations produces incomprehensibly complex bounded wave structures (such as us) whose behavior might be termed 'autonomous' or 'free' to the extent that it's effectively determined by the internal structures and dynamics and not external ones.

Of course external conditions and stimuli are also effective determinants of behavior. But we are continually 'internalizing' our environment, and as a result our behavior can become less predictable with respect to it.

Let me present you with a question. Do you think a single photon in the double-slit experiment "choose" which slit they go through in the same way we make decisions?

No. The behavior of light at the photon scale is understandable (to the extent that it's predictable) in terms of more fundamental physical dynamics than is our behavior.

Our complexity makes us 'self-determining' to a certain extent.

What I'm arguing is that our process from input to output is no different then a rock (when thrown in the air) "deciding" to head back towards Earth. It's just a much more complicated process.

But that would be missing the point. We and our behavior are products of the same fundamental dynamic(s) that produced rocks and determine their behavior, but our "decisions" and "choices" (and, thus, our behaviors) are, unlike a rock's behavior, often as much determined by internal as by external stimuli. Rocks don't, and can't, do anything like what we call decisions and choices.

In fact, I think it's least probable that we are either entirely free or not free at all. Ultimately, I believe free will (and it's apparent opposite) are both products of our imagination. A byproduct of the limitation of words in communication between two or more parties.

Nothing in the Universe, including us, is free in the sense that it (or we) might operate in ways that contradict the fundamental physical dynamic(s) of the Universe. However, as higher order, complex emergent phenomena, we do exhibit a certain range of what I think can properly be termed 'self-determination'.

I think this is what JoeDawg has been saying. If not I apologize. Anyway, this is how I've come to think about 'free will' (vis this thread) -- until or unless I change my mind again.

 

[ThomasT]

How can I know the extent to which anybody's behavior is determined more by internal or by external factors? That is, how can I know the extent to which someone is acting autonomously?

For that matter, since we're continually internalizing environmental factors, then ...

Uh oh, I'm confusing myself again.

 

[JoeDawg]

Nothing in the Universe, including us, is free in the sense that it (or we) might operate in ways that contradict the fundamental physical dynamic(s) of the Universe. However, as higher order, complex emergent phenomena, we do exhibit a certain range of what I think can properly be termed 'self-determination'.

I think this is what JoeDawg has been saying. If not I apologize. Anyway, this is how I've come to think about 'free will' (vis this thread) -- until or unless I change my mind again.

I find discussions of 'emergence' interesting. Mainly, I think the jury is still out. Saying freewill is an illusion is like saying reality is an illusion.
You're really not saying much of anything.

 

[Pythagorean]

But that would be missing the point. We and our behavior are products of the same fundamental dynamic(s) that produced rocks and determine their behavior, but our "decisions" and "choices" (and, thus, our behaviors) are, unlike a rock's behavior, often as much determined by internal as by external stimuli. Rocks don't, and can't, do anything like what we call decisions and choices.

I didn't literally mean "no different"

Our complexity makes us 'self-determining' to a certain extent.

prove it? Or at least give me a valid argument why that should be.

as higher order, complex emergent phenomena, we do exhibit a certain range of what I think can properly be termed 'self-determination'.

I think this is what JoeDawg has been saying. If not I apologize.

Expand on this more, show me what you see.



A small theory I've cooked up in the past:

I compare behavior to a path-independent integral, in which only the starting and ending points are relevant. You can take any path to compute the intergral (so of course, we expose this in science/math and construct the simplest path).

That is to say, we all ultimately share the same ultimate fate regardless of our desire to choose, for instance we all die... but we have many different options for the path we chose to take to that final point.

 

[Moridin]

The difference between a rock and a human and the reason such a comparison is invalid is because a human can (deterministically) simulate reality and anticipate likely consequences of their actions and act to avoid what it deems as bad consequences. A rock can't.

Furthermore, choice is real, it is simply the (deterministic) process of selection between hypothetical alternatives.

Freedom evolves by Dennet is a very good book to read.

 

[Pythagorean]

The difference between a rock and a human and the reason such a comparison is invalid is because a human can (deterministically) simulate reality and anticipate likely consequences of their actions and act to avoid what it deems as bad consequences. A rock can't.

Furthermore, choice is real, it is simply the (deterministic) process of selection between hypothetical alternatives.

Freedom evolves by Dennet is a very good book to read.

That doesn't necessarily make the comparison invalid. What I'm comparing is the amount of freewill involved. You call the process of a human responding to inputs with an output "choice". You call the rock responding to inputs with an output and you call it "physics".

What you seem to implying is that there's some special thing (like a soul?) that sets our more complicated series of physical events apart from those in nonliving things.

I'm saying it's just as possible that our choices have no free will behind them, just like the rock doesn't. That we simply experience the process decision-making but don't actually make the decision.

 

[JoeDawg]

I compare behavior to a path-independent integral, in which only the starting and ending points are relevant. You can take any path to compute the intergral (so of course, we expose this in science/math and construct the simplest path).

That is to say, we all ultimately share the same ultimate fate regardless of our desire to choose, for instance we all die... but we have many different options for the path we chose to take to that final point.

I'd say you're overapplying math. Its useful in describing life, but that doesn't mean that it implies some quality that exists. The number 1 is useful in this way too, but whether it actually corresponds to objects 'out there', as opposed to just being a convenient way of grouping things on the level we exist, is unknown. Old question of how the observed pattern is actually a part of the thing described.

Interesting idea, but I'm not sure that life is as much a thing as a process. If the latter, then the path taken is just as important to its existence. Its just that its not important to you, for your purposes.

 

[Pythagorean]

I'd say you're overapplying math. Its useful in describing life, but that doesn't mean that it implies some quality that exists. The number 1 is useful in this way too, but whether it actually corresponds to objects 'out there', as opposed to just being a convenient way of grouping things on the level we exist, is unknown. Old question of how the observed pattern is actually a part of the thing described.

Interesting idea, but I'm not sure that life is as much a thing as a process. If the latter, then the path taken is just as important to its existence. Its just that its not important to you, for your purposes.

It's not meant to be taken too literally. The important aspect that I gained from that analogy is that freewill and "determined" or not mutually exclusive.

 

[JoeDawg]

It's not meant to be taken too literally. The important aspect that I gained from that analogy is that freewill and "determined" or not mutually exclusive.

I agree they aren't mutually exclusive.

You're taking the 'river' approach to causality then?

Remove or move a drop or two of water and the river doesn't notice, it still ends up in the ocean. That sounds more like the idea of 'fate' rather than determinism to me, that is, it doesn't much matter what action you take, it all ends the same way.

 

[ThomasT]

I'm saying it's just as possible that our choices have no free will behind them, just like the rock doesn't.

I essentially agree. I'd just say that rocks are definitively less self-motivated than humans.

We're just sorting out the meaning of the term 'free will'. If our thoughts and actions are determined by antecedent events, then I agree that 'free will' is something of a misnomer. Sometimes our thoughts and actions are more effectively, or more obviously, determined by external events and conditions, and sometimes, apparently anyway, more by internal conditions or principles of action that we call our own.

That we simply experience the process decision-making but don't actually make the decision.

This is saying the same thing I think. Saying that we make decisions doesn't mean that those decisions aren't determined by our internal and external histories.

 

[ThomasT]

That sounds more like the idea of 'fate' rather than determinism to me, that is, it doesn't much matter what action you take, it all ends the same way.

It's difficult to separate determinism and fatalism, isn't it? I mean, I think determinism implies fatalism.

I don't think fatalism says that the present and future wouldn't be different if the past and present had been different. It just says that, in fact, the past wasn't something different. It was what it was. And the present is what it is. And the future is a function of what was and what is, not what might have been.

Even for a fatalist, our decisions and choices determine the future. However, our decisions and choices are determined by antecedent states (and any underlying dynamics that we can infer from the way states change), so the future is determined -- we just don't know what it's going to be yet because our knowledge of Nature is incomplete.

 

[JoeDawg]

It's difficult to separate determinism and fatalism, isn't it? I mean, I think determinism implies fatalism.

Oedipus is a good example of fate. It pretty much didn't matter how good a person he was, or how good a king. He was fated to kill his father and marry his mother. No matter what he did, he would end up doing that. Outside forces were driving him in a certain direction, like a curse.

So its not determinism in any modern sense, meaning its not about one thing logically following another, its about no matter how illogical or improbable... this or that, will happen, because its already written.

A very strict kind of determinism has the same result of course, but fatalism implies a foreknowledge of some sort, whereas determinism doesn't. You don't really need to know anything more than what is probable with determinism and in fact it might be impossible to know the outcome given a complex enough determinist system.

 

[Pythagorean]

I agree they aren't mutually exclusive.

You're taking the 'river' approach to causality then?

Remove or move a drop or two of water and the river doesn't notice, it still ends up in the ocean. That sounds more like the idea of 'fate' rather than determinism to me, that is, it doesn't much matter what action you take, it all ends the same way.

Not necessarily. The only reason we all head towards to the same "fate" is a statistical result of the laws of the universe. Contamination and entropy; our system (of life) is so complex that the whole thing remaining stable forever is an unreasonable request.

So it's the rules in the beginning that came first, the end is just the result.

Sometimes our thoughts and actions are more effectively, or more obviously, determined by external events and conditions, and sometimes, apparently anyway, more by internal conditions or principles of action that we call our own.

To me, this is independent of freewill. A cloud has internal forces and external forces in the same way. From my (a materialist's) perspective, in a human, they're the motion and configuration of particles in your brain which is a result of genetic and environmental conditions.

Of course, I don't have the best understanding of what free-will is still. Most of the time it's explained to me, I fail to see how the same definitions don't apply to the weather or the water cycle; why we should have freewill but they shouldn't.

 

[Moridin]

That doesn't necessarily make the comparison invalid. What I'm comparing is the amount of freewill involved. You call the process of a human responding to inputs with an output "choice". You call the rock responding to inputs with an output and you call it "physics".

What you seem to implying is that there's some special thing (like a soul?) that sets our more complicated series of physical events apart from those in nonliving things.

I'm saying it's just as possible that our choices have no free will behind them, just like the rock doesn't. That we simply experience the process decision-making but don't actually make the decision.

No, the difference is that the brain (no soul needed) can simulate the likely consequences of our action and act to avoid (="decide"), whereas this is not possible for a rock. Now, because a choice (selection of one alternative) is deterministic, does not make it any less of a choice. The main problem with what you have outlined is that we are not just experiencing the process of decision-making and standing outside like a ghost unable to do anything, the process of decision-making itself is a part of who we are.

 

[Pythagorean]

No, the difference is that the brain (no soul needed) can simulate the likely consequences of our action and act to avoid (="decide"), whereas this is not possible for a rock.

You're still missing the point if you think this argument is a valid. You're not showing me how freewill entered into the decision-making process. How it compares to a rock is that there was no free will involved. You can redefine "decide" all you like, but you still haven't made any argument why free-will should be a part of the decision making process.

Now, because a choice (selection of one alternative) is deterministic, does not make it any less of a choice. The main problem with what you have outlined is that we are not just experiencing the process of decision-making and standing outside like a ghost unable to do anything...

I already know what your conclusion is... I'm looking for a valid argument, not for you to restate your obvious conclusion again.

In other words, prove it.

the process of decision-making itself is a part of who we are.

That I agree with, and I also think we are unique in this way. This, of course, is not an argument for free-will.

 

[ValenceE]

Hello to all,

This ‘free will’ subject really makes for one very interesting exchange of ideas and thoughts about ourselves and the world around us. Here’s a first draft of some thoughts of mine…

I do believe humans are endowed with a decision making process that transcends the determined, instinctive, conditioned or emotionally driven state of being that are common to all of Earth’s nature and inhabitants.

Everything created on this planet (and everywhere else) is as it should be. Physically, everything is subjected to Universal laws and evolves, always being subjected to these laws.

I also believe that free will is not an emergent phenomenon, that it is not the product of a material object or group of objects like cells or brain, in the same sense as thoughts would be.

Furthermore, a rock doesn’t think like we think… its immaterial component is strictly related to internal and external energy exchanges. It cannot move from A to B on its own and only needs to be, to exist. It ‘lives’ in a determinist world, all of its parts subjected to, and obeying those same Universal laws.

Same goes for our Sun and all the magnificent stars and cosmological bodies we marvel at.

Same goes for the Flora, which has more ‘freedom’ to move about, interacting better with the environment than the mineral realm. Alas, Flora can only strech and keep its sight towards the sun while reaching deeper into the ground, doing its amazing photosynthesis thing, but still cannot go on a trip to visit a distant cousin.

For elementary life, freedom of movement doesn’t bring cognitive reality but it certainly gives the moving entity a lot more possibilities of interacting with its environment, however still being subjected to the Universal laws. While on the go, an amoeba cannot resist its energy replenishment cycle and cannot ‘decide’ what the intake will consist of and when it will take place. Light years away from choosing between steak and pasta, on the happy hour menu.

The closer you get to the ‘higher order’ living beings, the more possibilities are offered to interact with the environment. I strongly believe that, the more complex interaction network something possesses, the more knowledge is gained and the more refined and elaborate the thought process can evolve, transforming itself into a decision making process.

Possibilities are no longer available only naturally, letting the laws apply, but also through a new pathway… being willed.

Now, that remains within the grasp of the deterministic physical world, still no freewill at work here, only being conditioned by acquired knowledge, on the verge of being emotional…

‘nough for now , regards,

VE

 

[Moridin]

You're still missing the point if you think this argument is a valid. You're not showing me how freewill entered into the decision-making process. How it compares to a rock is that there was no free will involved. You can redefine "decide" all you like, but you still haven't made any argument why free-will should be a part of the decision making process.

Yes, I have. The problem is that you think that free will means a magical fairy, rather than the ability to act in accordance with your values. Compatibilist freedom (or "free will") like this is a necessary part of decision making by definition.

That I agree with, and I also think we are unique in this way. This, of course, is not an argument for free-will.

It certainly is! Humans make virtual models of reality and anticipate likely outcomes of their actions and determine actions to avoid bad consequences. This is what is meant by free will and this is an accurate description of human decision making.

 

[Stratosphere]

The brain and the body act almost as a vehicle for somthing that is not physical what ever that may be. There is no proof against that somthing.

 

[Pythagorean]

The brain and the body act almost as a vehicle for somthing that is not physical what ever that may be. There is no proof for that somthing.

fixed for accuracy

 

[Stratosphere]

fixed for accuracy

There is no proof against it either, if you can find me something that disproves it, I would love to see it.

 

[Pythagorean]

Yes, I have. The problem is that you think that free will means a magical fairy, rather than the ability to act in accordance with your values. Compatibilist freedom (or "free will") like this is a necessary part of decision making by definition.

Or the problem is that you think free will actually exists. Perhaps it's insulting for some people to be compared to a rock.

How about a photon? Photons make deterministic decisions that appear to be arbitrary choices. Do you think photons have free-will?

 

[Pythagorean]

There is no proof against it either, if you can find me something that disproves it, I would love to see it.

the point is that the burden of proof is on you to show your claim has validity.

 

[Stratosphere]

the point is that the burden of proof is on you to show your claim has validity.

Did you not read my original post? I already stated that I cannot prove that I am correct nor can you prove you are correct. I have stated my opinion, nobody said you must agree with it.

 

[ValenceE]

Hello Pythagorean.

sorry, not sure i understand what you mean by ' fixed for accuracy '... care to elaborate ?



ragards,

VE