I assume this definition of free will: The ability to -given multiple courses of action- choose any of them, whereby the choice is not fully explained by the circumstances in which it is made, that is the origin of the choice solely resides in the subject making it. I also assume that any fully deterministic physical system is computable (in the sense that there is a finite algorithm that can be evaluated in an unambiguous manner in finite time that can predict the single future state of a physical system given the state of that system and the laws of physics governing it). Also, this is just brainstorming, in practice one would have to be way more rigorous and careful obviously.
Although I'd like to believe in (hope it to exist) free will (who wants to be fully described by a mere computation?), this seems difficult given the following observations/postulates (I'm a layman in many topics referenced, correct me if I'm wrong):
If all constructs and interactions in our universe are deterministic and computable, free will is disproven, because then any combination of constructs within the universe may in principle be simulated (computed) to perfect degree in finite time, including all life forms, and any choice that does not fully and deterministically emerge from a previous computation is impossible.
Parts of the currently known laws of physics include the possibility of true randomness (in the causation sense), that is some events may only be predicted statistically even if all (currently describable) circumstances are known (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory and Bell's theorem in that article).
Even on a basis of indeterminism and (some) uncomputable laws of physics one can build deterministic devices in the macro sense (e.g. circuits), that are large enough to practically extinguish influence from supposedly truly random occurences like atom decay. A vast amount of scientific/engineering progress relies on this fact.
Life forms are entirely made out of the same building blocks physically (elementary particles or something else, depending on your model of physics).
The simpler the life form, the more unfitting it is to say that it has free will (think about cells, bacteria and insects). In fact it may just behave like a circuit or cellular automaton.
If simple building blocks of life forms and their interactions are shown to be deterministic, then any combination of them is also deterministic (at least in the macro sense).
Our brains are made from cells functioning and interacting in a deterministic manner in the macro sense (like circuits) and no other mechanism can be attributed to the brain's functioning. The brain is the sole origin and seat of the mind (this is not required if the rest of the "seat" behaves in the manner described).
Then the mind is deterministic (and computable to high precision) as well even though we may not comprehend the origin of our thoughts or actions: "Experience teaches us no less clearly than reason, that men believe themselves free, simply because they are conscious of their actions, and unconscious of the causes whereby those actions are determined." -- Spinoza.
Thus free will is an illusion. Any deliberation on what action to take given a choice has an already determined single outcome the moment the incentive for making a choice is given, but the subject cannot comprehend the complex underlying mechanisms fully determining his deliberation, thus he believes himself free.
It's likely I have conflated terms where I shouldn't have and the argument structure is a bit wonky, but that's what your are for. In case of doubt, ask.
Further problems: The mind body problem: How can a mind emerge from a fully physical system? Is the mind an illusion (or would free will being an illusion imply this or vice versa)?
Assume that truly random and computationally undescribable problems do significantly govern our behavior. Would this enable free choice or would free choice merely be a probabilistic phenomenon?
Is our mind capable of hypercomputation in some sense (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercomputation, it clearly is at least Turing-complete ignoring memory constraints)? If not, does this mean that it is Turing-computable (at most Turing-complete) and does this imply physical determinism? Or do thought processes not fit any known class of computational power, that is are current notions of computability sufficient or even applicable?
How do you solve the problem of who controls deliberation when faced with a choice and how (how is a choice made if not not randomly (deterministically) and not truly randomly either)?
Where does free will start? Is it quantifiable?
A lot of ground could be gained by answering the questions: Can you control what you think? If so, how? If not, does this leave a place for free will regardless?
P.S. I'm not satisfied with this post yet and will probably edit it later.
All syllogisms have three parts, therefore this is not a syllogism.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
RGamma wrote:
I assume this definition of free will: The ability to -given multiple courses of action- choose any of them, whereby the choice is not fully explained by the circumstances in which it is made, that is the origin of the choice solely resides in the subject making it.
Are you considering the ability of an outcome to be included in the definition of free will, or only the thought or desire of a particular outcome? They are not the same, as not every action comes to fruition.
RGamma wrote:
Although I'd like to believe in
"Believing in" something is a fallacy. That very notion is to turn off or ignore your logical resources. Rather you should be aiming to "believe that something is true due to...".
RGamma wrote:
If all constructs and interactions in our universe are deterministic and computable
There is no proof that it is anything but deterministic. However, as a hypothetical, there can be things which are running on top of two distinct sets of determinism, with no relation between them. You must also consider if such a thing as "free will" exists, if its existence is limited to things that are not deterministic, if we can somehow divide parts of the universe or human function between deterministic and non-deterministic.
RGamma wrote:
Parts of the currently known laws of physics include the possibility of true randomness
Which is probably just wishful thinking if not outright baloney. Every perceived possibility for randomness is simply inability to understand the variables or algorithms involved.
You might also want to read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis
Is there any proof that any moment you experience is actually connected to any previous moment, or is that an illusion?
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Which is probably just wishful thinking if not outright baloney. Every perceived possibility for randomness is simply inability to understand the variables or algorithms involved.
This is strongly suspected to be false. To fully understand why, you'll need to thoroughly study RGamma's link on hidden variable theories as well as things like quantum entanglement and the Bell inequalities. We have strong reason to believe that probability naturally arises out of quantum mechanics and attempts to explain quantum mechanical phenomena as a consequence of probability theory results in predictions that are not upheld by experiment.
As for the posed question, I am not the least bit religious but this is one instance where I have "belief" of a sort. I do believe that free will exists, not because I have any evidence for it (to the contrary, RGamma outlines a decent argument against it) but because the alternative is just too damn horrifying for me to accept. There is so much suffering in the world and the ideas that it was all predestined to occur and/or that we can exert effectively no control over our lives gives me the heebie-jeebies.
I realize that the universe doesn't care how much I'm creeped out by it. I also understand that there is much evidence that free will almost certainly does not exist for short timescales-- scientists can accurately predict in controlled lab settings what test subjects will do seconds before they believe they have made up their minds. Nevertheless, I think that there's something deeper going on that will take a long time to understand if it even can be understood. The presence of consciousness is not predicted by science or mathematics and I think there may be some injection of free will there, although I cannot offer any sort of mechanism. In fact, I'd argue that there are hints that free will might even lie outside the realms of mathematical modeling. Math does a great job of answering deterministic questions and a pretty good job of answering probabilistic ones too (although there is a surprising amount of philosophy in probability theory). As far as I know, math has never so much as touched the subject of desire. If free will exists, it is an expression of our (whoever "we" are) wish to interact with the physical world in a particular way. That's not modeled by the deterministic mathematics, nor by the probabilistic stuff. Instead, it's as if a math theory were to state, "two plus two wants to be four," which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
That's about all I can contribute on the subject.
Which is probably just wishful thinking if not outright baloney. Every perceived possibility for randomness is simply inability to understand the variables or algorithms involved.
Also consider Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and Schrödinger's cat.
I don't know why you think having free will means being unpredictable. One can be unpredictable, but that couldn't happen too frequently, because not all the time there are circumstances that would allow that. To illustrate, here's an example of an action, that most people couldn't predict:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql9GL8bJ32Y#t=884
Yet it can still be expected by some, that already have experienced that. And with enough experience, those can probably even be predicted.
The problem is, we will never know, because there can not be a computer or a machine that accounts for everything. You can be improving it by adding new features to it, that let it consider new facts, but you don't know all the facts either! Instead of making an omni-aware machine, you at some point will say: "Uh, I'm tired of doing this for 50 years.Let it burn already."
About decisions themselves. Elsewhere I said that decisions are always based on something. In the example above it's based on trusting such an impulse and knowing no disadvantages of trusting it. Or ignoring such disadvantages. If it's some good impulse, then it still matters how hard the choice is. But yes, any choice relies on something, be it physical reality or one's beliefs. But it also depends on priorities. Which might depend on literally everything in one's life, consciously or subconsciously. And so, you can't predict one's decisions perfectly, because there's no way to know all priorities of a man.
Now what if there was such an ability - ability to build an omni-aware machine? I think it would be able to predict everything. Would it mean people will stop having free will to choose? I don't think so. Interestingly, priorities are not exactly what forces one to make a decision, but rather stimulate him: depending on your decision, factors that you consider important will be satisfied, which in most cases leads to you yourself also being satisfied. That might lead to someone else being abused though, so morality is another aspect that's involved. Note: a decision to ignore other's morality principles in order to satisfy his own priorities is a moral decision anyway.
I don't think it answers any of your questions, but my idea is that the world is absolutely complex, so there's no way to check if free will physically exists or not.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Bobo the King wrote:
Nach wrote:
Which is probably just wishful thinking if not outright baloney. Every perceived possibility for randomness is simply inability to understand the variables or algorithms involved.
This is strongly suspected to be false. To fully understand why, you'll need to thoroughly study RGamma's link on hidden variable theories as well as things like quantum entanglement and the Bell inequalities. We have strong reason to believe that probability naturally arises out of quantum mechanics and attempts to explain quantum mechanical phenomena as a consequence of probability theory results in predictions that are not upheld by experiment.
I've read up on all this material, I find it entirely unconvincing. All the experiments can prove is that so far there is much phenomena that cannot be explained by existing tools. I would go so far as to say that determinism is unfalsifiable, anything which proves non-determinism can be viewed in a different perspective to prove lack of knowledge.
Bobo the King wrote:
There is so much suffering in the world and the ideas that it was all predestined to occur and/or that we can exert effectively no control over our lives gives me the heebie-jeebies.
If the simulation hypothesis is true, this is indeed correct, no one has any control. But I would take that one step further, some people may be *real*, and the simulation is about them, while others are simply controls for the experiment. Maybe some of the suffering is not real per se, and is only there to see how you or I react to it.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
I don't know why you think having free will means being unpredictable. One can be unpredictable, but that couldn't happen too frequently, because not all the time there are circumstances that would allow that. To illustrate, here's an example of an action, that most people couldn't predict
If anyone was, with 100% certainty, predictable all the time this is my point 1 and we're done.
It doesn't matter that people can't predict what's going to happen in that video, because our mental capabilites are severely limited and nobody could run a mental simulation of all the particles/cells/neurons in Jim's body in real time and map these back into actions.
feos wrote:
The problem is, we will never know, because there can not be a computer or a machine that accounts for everything. You can be improving it by adding new features to it, that let it consider new facts, but you don't know all the facts either! Instead of making an omni-aware machine, you at some point will say: "Uh, I'm tired of doing this for 50 years.Let it burn already."
About decisions themselves. Elsewhere I said that decisions are always based on something. In the example above it's based on trusting such an impulse and knowing no disadvantages of trusting it. Or ignoring such disadvantages. If it's some good impulse, then it still matters how hard the choice is. But yes, any choice relies on something, be it physical reality or one's beliefs. But it also depends on priorities. Which might depend on literally everything in one's life, consciously or subconsciously. And so, you can't predict one's decisions perfectly, because there's no way to know all priorities of a man.
Now what if there was such an ability - ability to build an omni-aware machine? I think it would be able to predict everything. Would it mean people will stop having free will to choose? I don't think so. Interestingly, priorities are not exactly what forces one to make a decision, but rather stimulate him: depending on your decision, factors that you consider important will be satisfied, which in most cases leads to you yourself also being satisfied. That might lead to someone else being abused though, so morality is another aspect that's involved. Note: a decision to ignore other's morality principles in order to satisfy his own priorities is a moral decision anyway.
I don't think it answers any of your questions, but my idea is that the world is absolutely complex, so there's no way to check if free will physically exists or not.
This is why I built up my argument from simpler physical principles. It is enough to show that deterministic physical laws govern all parts (it doesn't matter to what abstraction level your go here as long as the general behavior of the entire structure can be accounted for, for instance you could argue on the level of molecules or cells or neurons) whose mutual connections make up our body, then any configuration of these parts is equally deterministic. In presence of non-deterministic forces show that probabilistic influence is negligible (like Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, atom decay or cosmic rays being generally negligible for the proper functioning of a circuit on Earth most of the time (but in case a glitch occurs in the circuit, you wouldn't say it has exerted free will, would you?)). If you showed that non-deterministic forces somehow are not negligible in our case, you aren't saved though, because then it could be said that free will doesn't exist either because a train of thought may be influenced by pure chance.
Consider Conway's game of life. Even though the behavior of the cells can become quite sophisticated, it follows from just the rules on which it is based, that any state of the board has a predictable outcome. If you were to show someone a sequence from a Conway's game of life-like game, it may be difficult to predict the next state, but by simply knowing that every fundamental part of the game is predictable and all rules by which these are connected are predictable you can already positively answer the predictability question (even if these rules rely on results from chaotic maps or PRNGs or anything arbitrarily complicated you may or may not think of, such that the game appears "absolutely complex"), much like from reducing a formal system or process to a (much simpler) Turing-machine it follows that it is Turing-complete. Similarly fundamental results come from information theory (such as that no reversible compression algorithm can ever strictly reduce the size of all of its inputs (the space of algorithms is ridiculously large)). Here "predictable" includes "with high certainty". Even a Conway's game of life with very small probabilistic influence may still be modelled to high accuracy.
To save free will you need two things: Non-determinism is not negligible when explaining the functioning of the mind and this probabilistic influence cannot be explained by anything outside the subject. It is not enough not being able to explain where impulses come from, after all their origin may not be in our immediate mental grasp (much like the next unknown prime number isn't, the problems we're dealing with here likely many many orders of magnitude more computationally intensive), and a reduction argument like one for Turing-completeness can show up fundamental limits regardless of whether we understand all the details.
Nach wrote:
Are you considering the ability of an outcome to be included in the definition of free will, or only the thought or desire of a particular outcome? They are not the same, as not every action comes to fruition.
Desire is not necessary. It matters only that in principle you could have chosen differently and no complete functional description of you can fully explain the choice you made.
The matter of free will goes much deeper than what my definition seems to suggest, so I want to draw attention to the question I edited in later: Can you control what you think? In a sense it is assumed that at any moment you're given the choice to think about something else (which is synonymous with being in control of one's though process), although these choices are not presented externally. What then is the guiding principle behind how thoughts are "chosen" (how they occur)? They clearly can be influenced by external substances or illness, and clearly you don't need to think about what to think before you think it, because that leads to an infinite regress.
The simulation hypothesis seems interesting, but I don't think it leads to much progress on this topic considering that we assume a fixed universe implicitely in this discussion, whether simulated or not.
All syllogisms have three parts, therefore this is not a syllogism.
I can't make sense of your second part of the post. All I know is that ability to choose itself is tied to will. And will depends on things I described. The choice always has reasons. If someone knew everything, he would also know what choices people will make, since they have reasons, it's just not limited to known things. But for a person who makes the choice, it's usually not known for sure, whether what he chooses is better or worse. There can only be presumptions (that might be logical to some extent, but no guarantees).
If the above means to you that free will does not exist at all, well, ok. But I'm actually free in what I decide, since I have this ability to actually chose anything. However, I don't even know why "free will" is such a big deal. I always try to find the most productive reasons to rule my will whenever I'm about to choose something. Then again, that's my will to choose those reasons for my actions. It's based on my priorities, and priorities are based on what brings me pleasure (and different kinds of pleasure also have priorities). I don't see how having reasons (that one still can choose too) means absolute determinism and no free will. But whatever.
In conclusion, since whoever makes the choice can't be 100% sure about the outcome, here's your randomness. It's not objectively random, but it's random for a person who doesn't have all the information. And since reality depends on what he chooses, voilà, subjective randomness spawns in the objective world.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
I can't make sense of your second part of the post. All I know is that ability to choose itself is tied to will. And will depends on things I described. The choice always has reasons. If someone knew everything, he would also know what choices people will make, since they have reasons, it's just not limited to known things. But for a person who makes the choice, it's usually not known for sure, whether what he chooses is better or worse. There can only be presumptions (that might be logical to some extent, but no guarantees).
If the above means to you that free will does not exist at all, well, ok. But I'm actually free in what I decide, since I have this ability to actually chose anything. However, I don't even know why "free will" is such a big deal. I always try to find the most productive reasons to rule my will whenever I'm about to choose something. Then again, that's my will to choose those reasons for my actions. It's based on my priorities, and priorities are based on what brings me pleasure (and different kinds of pleasure also have priorities). I don't see how having reasons (that one still can choose too) means absolute determinism and no free will. But whatever.
In conclusion, since whoever makes the choice can't be 100% sure about the outcome, here's your randomness. It's not objectively random, but it's random for a person who doesn't have all the information. And since reality depends on what he chooses, voilà, subjective randomness spawns in the objective world.
There is a big semantic gap between the level on which I am trying to argue (for which I'd need a much more rigorous and technical jargon) and the high-level concepts you describe, so I wouldn't be surprised if my argument feels disconnected. You're right in saying that completely disproving free will would not necessarily change our conduct and the associated experience, esp. since such an argument would be highly technical and out of immediate mental grasp anyway (ignorance is bliss, isn't it), which seems like a good point and I agree (although some philosopher might go mad somewhere :)).
"However, I don't even know why 'free will' is such a big deal"
I see it as the final bastion against the complex, but cold and ultimately meaningless, world that physics has revealed to us. We may be ruled by all kinds of fundamental forces in our universe that we have no control over and which we only exist at the mercy of, but it is hoped that there is something that is not part of of this machinery, a cog that defies expectations so to speak.
All syllogisms have three parts, therefore this is not a syllogism.
So what about my last passage?
Also, I don't see how you can connect physics and meaninglessness. It's like, "if I collide two apples and they both break then there's no love in the world".
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Your last passage is the "ignorance is bliss" point I agreed with in that it wouldn't change our conduct since the processes ruling our behavior are not within our immediate mental grasp and as such we wouldn't be aware of them right there and then anyway.
Meaning as an organizing principle of thought and desire would not be affected by disproving free will (in fact, none of our cognitive concepts would, since they're all instances of the brain's machinery and therefore inevitable). But that would reveal that we're essentially no more than rocks floating in space (elaborate rocks, but rocks nonetheless).
Whether there's something more (meaning) to the existence of the universe as an inquiry isn't affected by the free will debate, so I take the "ultimately meaningless" back.
All syllogisms have three parts, therefore this is not a syllogism.
Meaning as an organizing principle of thought and desire would not be affected by disproving free will. But that would reveal that we're essentially no more than rocks floating in space (elaborate rocks, but rocks nonetheless).
That's basically what I find silly. And the actual question you're raising is, what would be the difference between a human that is the primary author of his decisions, and the one that's entirely ruled by the circumstances. Is it right?
In my opinion, both exist in reality. Some people want to drive their own lives in some way, others just rely on the circumstances and let them command what choices the human should make. So the former have will for actions, and the latter don't care.
Still, I see no point in discussing how free that will is, since it can't be 100% random. But it has randomness to it, so it's not 100% deterministic either. Maybe in fact, it's a matter of measure?
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Meaning as an organizing principle of thought and desire would not be affected by disproving free will. But that would reveal that we're essentially no more than rocks floating in space (elaborate rocks, but rocks nonetheless).
That's basically what I find silly. And the actual question you're raising is, what would be the difference between a human that is the primary author of his decisions, and the one that's entirely ruled by the circumstances. Is it right?
In my opinion, both exist in reality. Some people want to drive their own lives in some way, others just rely on the circumstances and let them command what choices the human should make. So the former have will for actions, and the latter don't care.
Still, I see no point in discussing how free that will is, since it can't be 100% random. But it has randomness to it, so it's not 100% deterministic either. Maybe in fact, it's a matter of measure?
In the case of "no free will" both are devoid of any original agency by definition, yet this does not have necessary behavioral implications, since the sense of agency will still be there, which is what drives the almost axiomatic believe in free will today. It would simply mean that whatever any of them does is a matter of circumstances, including any thoughts and any attitudes, on a fundamentally physical level.
The "no free will" case doesn't rule out any of these types of people to exist, it merely rules out that there has been an original choice via a "magic" (devoid of utterly determining factors) mechanism that lead to their attitudes and actions, small and large. In fact, no kind of reaction to having no free will will lead you to gain more true agency, since the unfreeness is ingrained in your very existence and independent of any thought processes or decisions. And it is at this fundamental level, where determinacy and randomness play a role, that it could leave open the possibility for some sort of freedom in choice, not whether subjectively (with your limited mind) you can't explain in cognitive concepts why someone behaves in this or that way or whether you find it "random" like what Jim Carrey does.
All syllogisms have three parts, therefore this is not a syllogism.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
RGamma wrote:
Can you control what you think? In a sense it is assumed that at any moment you're given the choice to think about something else (which is synonymous with being in control of one's though process), although these choices are not presented externally. What then is the guiding principle behind how thoughts are "chosen" (how they occur)?
Everything I've seen about human thought is that it's simply a program (biology) operating on variables (environment, memories). You may *feel* you're *free* to make whatever choice you want, but you're just executing whatever you're programmed to do. The feelings and freedom are part of that program.
feos wrote:
If the above means to you that free will does not exist at all, well, ok. But I'm actually free in what I decide, since I have this ability to actually chose anything. However, I don't even know why "free will" is such a big deal. I always try to find the most productive reasons to rule my will whenever I'm about to choose something. Then again, that's my will to choose those reasons for my actions. It's based on my priorities, and priorities are based on what brings me pleasure (and different kinds of pleasure also have priorities). I don't see how having reasons (that one still can choose too) means absolute determinism and no free will. But whatever.
That freedom you're experiencing may well be an illusion. Your very existence is following a script with reactionary responses and a predefined maturation/progression algorithm. Every time you decide to do something, it's based on the criteria you know about something, your existing knowledge and experience, and your built in dispositions as they currently are. Given an exact moment in time with the exact same circumstances both within yourself and what is around you, can you possibly make any decision other than the one you made?
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
In the case of "no free will" both are devoid of any original agency by definition, yet this does not have necessary behavioral implications, since the sense of agency will still be there, which is what drives the almost axiomatic believe in free will today. It would simply mean that whatever any of them does is a matter of circumstances, including any thoughts and any attitudes, on a fundamentally physical level.
1. Where is this obsession - to explain the entire with a part of it - always coming form? Can't people just get it that the world is diverse?
2. What exactly is "original agency"?
Nach wrote:
Your very existence is following a script with reactionary responses and a predefined maturation/progression algorithm.
Citation needed (c).
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
In the case of "no free will" both are devoid of any original agency by definition, yet this does not have necessary behavioral implications, since the sense of agency will still be there, which is what drives the almost axiomatic believe in free will today. It would simply mean that whatever any of them does is a matter of circumstances, including any thoughts and any attitudes, on a fundamentally physical level.
1. Where is this obsession - to explain the entire with a part of it - always coming form? Can't people just get it that the world is diverse?
2. What exactly is "original agency"?
1. By principle of induction. You start with a basic collection of elements and operations and then you build a new collection by first putting the elements in, then applying operations to the elements and adding them in as well, and repeat. If you can reason about the original elements and operations, you can find that all elements hereby added to the collection have limitations about them that arise from the things you started with. You can also apply this in a more lax fashion by arguing that if you make a whole out of deterministically behaving and interacting parts then the whole must also be deterministic as defined by the behavior of its parts. This is arguing, not proving, but the idea stays the same.
2. The disposition to make truly free choices.
All syllogisms have three parts, therefore this is not a syllogism.
1. I mean, why do people always work so hard on proving that everything in the universe is a slave of physics?
2. If the definition of your "truly free choice" is what is in the OP, then I don't see how existence of free will could at all be proven. Like, what experimental outcome will tell you that "the origin of the choice solely resides in the subject making it"?
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
feos wrote:
Nach wrote:
Your very existence is following a script with reactionary responses and a predefined maturation/progression algorithm.
Citation needed (c).
It's based on the premise which follows:
Nach wrote:
Every time you decide to do something, it's based on the criteria you know about something, your existing knowledge and experience, and your built in dispositions as they currently are. Given an exact moment in time with the exact same circumstances both within yourself and what is around you, can you possibly make any decision other than the one you made?
Do you disagree with this premise?
------
Per Masterjun's rule of post updating, I changed "promise" (typo) to "premise".
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Given an exact moment in time with the exact same circumstances both within yourself and what is around you, can you possibly make any decision other than the one you made?
Do you disagree with this premise?
I don't have any way to actually check, so it wouldn't matter. The rest of your passage doesn't prove the freedom I'm experiencing is an illusion. It might be. But as long as my goals are achieved, I don't think I'd care.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
feos wrote:
The rest of your passage doesn't prove the freedom I'm experiencing is an illusion. It might be.
I agree with you, it's even what I wrote:
Nach wrote:
That freedom you're experiencing may well be an illusion.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
1. I mean, why do people always work so hard on proving that everything in the universe is a slave of physics?
Because people seek understanding. There's a fundamental underlying assumption here, that things can be explained, that there are regular rules that govern how things work. So far that assumption has usually worked out pretty well, though there are holes in our knowledge and our rules get awfully complicated sometimes.
It doesn't hurt that the more refined our descriptions of those rules become, the more capable we become in our ability to manipulate the universe.
Getting back to the existence of free will: I'm not convinced that it matters one way or another. People behave as if they have free will, and that's what matters. Whether it's actually some non-physical (or not bound by our current understanding of physics) entity making a conscious choice, or the inevitable outcome of a complicated biological computer, the outcome is the same.
In other words, from a consequentialist perspective, the question is moot. And on a related note, P-zombies are people, and so are true AIs, even though the former has (by definition) no true consciousness and the latter may be entirely deterministic.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
Yeah, I've raised the consequentialist point as well, but it's kind of a cheap way out in a topic like this.
Let's evolve it a bit: What do you think about the mind body problem? To me this is a much more pressing issue than the free will one and it'd be very hard to grasp that the mind could be a mere illusion as well (esp. considering the "inner voice"). In fact, I haven't heard one convincing argument about how mind and body relate (and if you make no distinction, like it is (attempted to be) done in modern times, what then are thoughts?).
If it could be shown that the inner voice is simply another form of activation of the speech centre and as such part of experience, what is experience? Any attempt at explanation simply shoves the issue sideways with no plausible explanations where mind and physics connect.
All syllogisms have three parts, therefore this is not a syllogism.
Disclaimer: arguing about this kind of thing right before going to bed is liable to make one incoherent. Apologies for badly-stated arguments below.
Put another way, you appear to be asking where a person's identity comes from. What makes you "you"? Barring mysticism (souls, etc.) your identity must derive from your physical self (because there's nothing else it can derive from), though I see no reason to place a separation between your brain and the rest of your body. Anyone who's ever been hungry, tired, excited, or afraid knows that the body and the mind are deeply tied together. A brain in a jar might be capable of cognition, but it would not have the same identity that that brain in its original body would have had.
Personally I don't think there's anything particularly special about consciousness or the act of experiencing things. Even very simple organisms are capable of experiencing trauma and learning to avoid it (or vice versa, experiencing pleasant things and learning to seek them). What's more unusual, as far as we can tell, is the ability to analyze ourselves and wonder why we experience things (i.e. the ability to perform meta-analyses). But while that might make us more complex than most creatures, it doesn't make us fundamentally different.
In brief, my stance is that we're all just collections of atoms and molecules which interact in interesting ways.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
There's a brilliant lecture (in Russian) about how deeper things that were considered outright spiritual in past by lots of people (scientists, philosophers, etc) in fact base entirely on how the brain operates.
http://tvkultura.ru/video/show/brand_id/20898/episode_id/156199/video_id/156199
The main idea is that memory and education are abilities of a brain, and we can affect both by manipulating the neurons.
On the other side, feelings are basically the hormones. You know the story.
Does it all mean, there's nothing besides that? I don't think so. Such an idea even looks impossible to prove, because it would again be attempting to explain the whole with a part. And it doesn't look possible to prove something doesn't exist: it can only be presumed to be non-existent as long as there's no proof it exists.
My point is, does the above disappoint? Does the above mean everything is worthless, since we're just occasional stones floating in space? Not to me. Pointless is degradation, and any idea that leads to it. Once progress is considered the main factor, it all starts making sense again, unless one doesn't actually consider it so important. And we end up discussing attitudes...
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
If something is indistinguishable from free will, does it really matter what the underlying mechanism is, and whether that mechanism conforms to our definition of "free will"?
De facto free will, which works in practice, is what matters.
