Ask an atheist (the second coming)

[cardgame]

Is free will meaningful?

I say no, but perhaps I haven't pondered it enough.

 

[peter grimes]

I apologize for linking the same series of articles multiples of times, but I found this series on Free Will to be incredibly interesting:

http://blog.case.edu/singham/free_will/index

This index lists the first entries at the bottom of the page, so start there.

 

[timtofly]

I say no, but perhaps I haven't pondered it enough.

You have willed not to do so? That is the freedom. You have the ability to choose what you like or do not like to do. No one has forced you to will yourself to not ponder it, nor have they forced you to ponder it.

Your will is your freedom. If you did not have a will, then you would not be able to make choices.

@ Peter Grimes

If one cannot connect to the soul, would their illusion be different than one who could?

Having a thousand opinions on the Bible, would seem to be individualistic based, even though the black and white on the page itself does not change?

 

[erez87]

None sense. While people making choices LOOKS as if they have free will, that isn't the case. Brain functions are based on calculations, and not choices. People "choose" based on mathematical calculations the brain does. If mathematical solutions are choice, computers, calculators and snowflakes are as free as us.

 

[Leoreth]

None sense. While people making choices LOOKS as if they have free will, that isn't the case. Brain functions are based on calculations, and not choices. People "choose" based on mathematical calculations the brain does. If mathematical solutions are choice, computers, calculators and snowflakes are as free as us.

When was that discovered?

 

[Ayatollah So]

Self-fulfilling prophecy allows a person to be correct if they predict A, and also to be correct if they predict B. Decision-making, and arriving at an intention about what you will do, involves a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is why predictability and determinism are NOT problematic for free will.

As David Velleman (pdf) explains:

On the one hand, there may be no particular way that the future is going to turn out— or at least, no way that’s necessitated, under the laws of nature, by the present state of the world. In that case, the future would be causally or metaphysically open. On the other hand, there may be no particular way that we must describe the future as turning out, in order to describe it correctly—or at least, no way that’s necessitated, under the laws of nature, by a correct description of the present state of the world. In that case, the future would be, as I put it, epistemically open. (‘Epistemic Freedom’ p. 34)

If you intend A, that brings it about that A. If you intend B, that brings it about that B. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Imagine a scientist who (thinks he) discovers that determinism is true, and responds to this by trying to calculate his next action from prior causes, rather than simply deciding. Would that be possible? Of course: it's still a self-fulfilling prophecy, so whatever he believes he will do, say A, he will do. It's possible, but not necessary, because if he were to decide on B, then he would do B. Either belief will turn out to be correct. So that frees us from any intellectual obligation to "discover" "the" truth about our future. We can just make it up as we go along.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Beginning to sound like Quantum Mechanics. Free will works when no one is paying attention to it, when you start thinking about it it all goes south.

 

[peter grimes]

When was that discovered?

I read a series of blog posts that referenced a paper that deals with this:
Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain, Chun Siong Soon, Marcel Brass, Hans-Jochen Heinze, & John-Dylan Haynes, Nature Neuroscience, vol. 11, no. 5, May 2008, 543-545

In entry #11 (On Free Will 11, recent fMRI studies of the brain), the author summarizes some of the research:

The fMRI studies find that our decisions as to what actions we will take originate in our unconscious neural activity and only later informs our conscious mind of it, thus providing strong evidence against the existence of free will. The paper describes what the researchers asked their test subjects to do while they were hooked up to fMRI measuring devices.

Here's a block of text from the summary of Soon et alia:

[T]wo specific regions in the frontal and parietal cortex of the human brain had considerable information that predicted the outcome of a motor decision the subject had not yet consciously made. This suggests that when the subject’s decision reached awareness it had been influenced by unconscious brain activity for up to 10 s. (my italics)
…
Notably, the lead times are too long to be explained by any timing inaccuracies in reporting the onset of awareness, which was a major criticism of previous studies. The temporal ordering of information suggests a tentative causal model of information flow, where the earliest unconscious precursors of the motor decision originated in frontopolar cortex, from where they influenced the buildup of decision-related information in the precuneus and later in SMA, where it remained unconscious for up to a few seconds.

This is part of the series of posts he wrote about Free Will.

 

[peter grimes]

If one cannot connect to the soul, would their illusion be different than one who could?

Having a thousand opinions on the Bible, would seem to be individualistic based, even though the black and white on the page itself does not change?

I don't understand the question about the soul. What do you mean by 'connect'? Does this question imply that you think some people have souls, others don't? Or is it more like some people are connected to their souls, while other people - despite having a soul - aren't connected to it?

The only way I can substantively respond is to say that as far as we know there is no such thing as a soul, and until there is evidence of it discussion of it is completely hypothetical.

As for your second question I have no idea what you're asking. Does it have something to do with this recent discussion of Free Will?

 

[warpus]

Imagine a scientist who (thinks he) discovers that determinism is true, and responds to this by trying to calculate his next action from prior causes, rather than simply deciding. Would that be possible? Of course: it's still a self-fulfilling prophecy, so whatever he believes he will do, say A, he will do. It's possible, but not necessary, because if he were to decide on B, then he would do B. Either belief will turn out to be correct. So that frees us from any intellectual obligation to "discover" "the" truth about our future. We can just make it up as we go along.

I don't see how you could build a machine that's both deterministic but also has free will.

 

[Ayatollah So]

All [will, consciousness, intelligence/rationality] would be impossible in a deterministic universe, imo.

Why? Is there a why, or is it just a gut feeling?

Beginning to sound like Quantum Mechanics. Free will works when no one is paying attention to it, when you start thinking about it it all goes south.

Quite the opposite - it's more like Godel than QM, I think. Only when you carefully examine it logically, does the Incompleteness become apparent.

I don't see how you could build a machine that's both deterministic but also has free will.

Well first you need a rational mind. To get mind, you might even have to use biological materials (I think it's an unsettled scientific and philosophical question (yes, both, at the same time!) what mind consists in). Whether a biological creation could count as a "machine", I'll leave up to the reader.

 

[warpus]

Why? Is there a why, or is it just a gut feeling?

I already explained it a couple times.

A deterministic machine will follow one path - with no room for "decisions". You plug stuff in, you know *exactly* what's coming out at the other end. There's no room for unexpected behaviour, at all.

Well first you need a rational mind. To get mind, you might even have to use biological materials (I think it's an unsettled scientific and philosophical question (yes, both, at the same time!) what mind consists in). Whether a biological creation could count as a "machine", I'll leave up to the reader.

Okay, now answer my question without using biological elements.

Explain how you could build a deterministic machine that can also have free will. The compounds you use to construct it don't matter - only the internal workings of what you put together. How would you do it?

The key is that it's deterministic, I want to see how you arrive at a scenario where free will is possible, in your machine.

To recap what determinism means: If your machine has 4 inputs and 2 internal variables, if you feed in the same inputs and the internal variables are the same, the output of your machine will be exactly the same each time. The only way to change the output is if you change an internal variable or an input.

 

[Ayatollah So]

The fMRI studies find that our decisions as to what actions we will take originate in our unconscious neural activity and only later informs our conscious mind of it, thus providing strong evidence against the existence of free will. The paper describes what the researchers asked their test subjects to do while they were hooked up to fMRI measuring devices.

This is part of the series of posts [Soon] wrote about Free Will.

The implicit definition of free will is too restrictive. Unconscious mind can be congruent with free will, as long as it is "on the same team" with the conscious mind.

I'm going to assume that these experiments are similar to Libet's. Then: in an experiment where subjects consciously agree to act intermittently on a whim, any whims will do, especially ones that originate unconsciously. Those are more random-seeming than the most salient conscious decisions, namely to start the action immediately, or to refrain throughout the experiment. So unconscious-originating whims are exactly what the subjects decided to use (although they probably didn't conceptualize it that way), to further the goal of helping with the scientist's experiment.

 

[timtofly]

I don't understand the question about the soul. What do you mean by 'connect'? Does this question imply that you think some people have souls, others don't? Or is it more like some people are connected to their souls, while other people - despite having a soul - aren't connected to it?

The only way I can substantively respond is to say that as far as we know there is no such thing as a soul, and until there is evidence of it discussion of it is completely hypothetical.

As for your second question I have no idea what you're asking. Does it have something to do with this recent discussion of Free Will?

The "ghost in the machine" "debunked" is the refusal to accept the soul. One can refuse the soul and still maintain the illusion of every day life. One can embrace the soul and still maintain the illusion of every day life. Free will is not restrictive nor deterministic. It is only an ability. The Bible is black and white and does not change. It is the perception of people that the illusion is there producing different opinions. If humans could explain the soul, they would be God. It is back to proving an unknown. You do not have to believe in it. IMO it is futile to explain that it does not exist. It does make for some interesting reading and discussion though.

I don't see how you could build a machine that's both deterministic but also has free will.

Free will is the ability to do things inside the boundaries of physical law. One can roll down a hill, one can sled down a hill, or one can take a vehicle down a hill. Those are seperate choices. One can only defy gravity in a vehicle though. Free will is not an ability to change a law, it only gives you parameters to "work" inside of a law.

 

[warpus]

Free will is the ability to do things inside the boundaries of physical law. One can roll down a hill, one can sled down a hill, or one can take a vehicle down a hill. Those are seperate choices. One can only defy gravity in a vehicle though. Free will is not an ability to change a law, it only gives you parameters to "work" inside of a law.

Which is IMO impossible in a deterministic system. In a deterministic system every action is based on a previous action.. Everything is set in stone - there is only one paththat can be taken.

 

[Leoreth]

I read a series of blog posts that referenced a paper that deals with this:
Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain, Chun Siong Soon, Marcel Brass, Hans-Jochen Heinze, & John-Dylan Haynes, Nature Neuroscience, vol. 11, no. 5, May 2008, 543-545

Thanks, but I meant his allegation that the brain carries out mathematical operations.

 

[erez87]

Thanks, but I meant his allegation that the brain carries out mathematical operations.

Obviously it was simplifying things. Brains don't DO anything. Brains are but the sum of neurons sending electric shocks to one another.

 

[peter grimes]

Thanks, but I meant his allegation that the brain carries out mathematical operations.

Ah, sorry.

I can't answer that. I'm still not really sure how 'real' mathematics is, or logic.

I've read a few books on the history of maths and such, and depending on which book I read I go back and forth. Sometimes it seems to me that the mathematical universe is part of reality just as much as protons and gravity. Other times it seems more esoteric, and not much beyond the idea of quantities and the relations between them is real...

...but then I get looped back into being forced to acknowledge that 2^1/2 is irrational, and I'm caught in an ever-widening spiral.

The way I see it, though, is that since the brain operates on chemical gradients and electrical charges there's no fundamental difference between the operations (logical or mathematical) it can make versus a silicon computer chip. So if a silicon computer chip can be shown to perform mathematical operations then the brain is also, at the very least, capable of it.

Neurons may not be simple XOR and XAND gates, but they're not all the different, either. At least this is my understanding.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Quite the opposite - it's more like Godel than QM, I think. Only when you carefully examine it logically, does the Incompleteness become apparent.

You're talking about the concept. I was talking about making the decision. Just making an impulsive decision vs making a decision being aware of testing the concept of free will which in turn influences that decision, undsoweiter.

No idea who Godel is by the way, but that's ok, hardly know anything about Quantum Mechanics either. Beside that it's odd and if you think you understand it you don't. Since I don't, maybe I do, so I don't.

 

[timtofly]

Which is IMO impossible in a deterministic system. In a deterministic system every action is based on a previous action.. Everything is set in stone - there is only one paththat can be taken.

All path's (we later found out) do not lead to Rome either. Determinism IMO is based on the result and not the ability though. It seems no matter what choice we make the end is always the same. However in predictions we do not know the outcome, we can only look back in hind sight. The illusion is that we think the outcome would be the same. There is no way of finding that out logically unless we can go back in time. It is logical to assume, but it is not logical to think that doing it over will produce the same result.

We have the illusion that life is deterministic, but to me that logic would mean that God exist and is the determining factor. I do not believe that. I still say that we are free to choose our path, even if an alleged God does know the outcome. We do not know the outcome and cannot say for a fact that all choices will produce the same outcome. I may have a false assurance of what may happen in the future. I may say I know what happens in the future. I cannot predict the future with 100% accuracy though; I still exercise faith.