Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Atheist Exile on November 27, 2010 at 8:09am

I hope you're wrong too, Fred, because I believe I AM being logical and that I'm dealing with facts we know to be true. There are at least a couple of dozen modules identified within the brain. In neurological discussions and papers, feedback is a common concept. Self-consciousness and future-consciousness (anticipation) are also acknowledged facts.

My presentation tries to avoid philosophy and neurology because they don't really matter to my argument. For instance, it doesn't matter how the brain does what it does as long as you can agree that, WHATEVER it does before prompting us to act, it can be construed as causal factors precipitating those actions. And philosophy . . . what can I say? All the philosophizing in the world has never provided a clear-cut, conclusive, argument for or against free will.

Compatibilism is a determinist philosophy that asserts compatibility between determinism and free will. Absolute (or "hard") determinism denies this compatibility and takes a reductionist approach to causality. I believe my explanation offers absolute determinists the mechanism by which free will is achieved while still maintaining the integrity of causality.

Self-determinism is free will in action. It's easier to understand if you can admit that consciousness and free will can only hold meaning in context of the interaction of our brains with the world around us.

Permalink Reply by Atheist Exile on November 27, 2010 at 9:36am

@doone,

Some of that first paragraph is reminiscent of my own writing . . . but I don't get the relevance of the rest of this New Scientist excerpt. Maybe that's because I've been up for more than 24 hours. I think it's time to hit the sack.

Permalink Reply by Atheist Exile on November 28, 2010 at 7:39am

When we go to the grocery store and buy food, most of us are also planning upcoming meals. When we then actually prepare those meals, isn't that empirical evidence for free will? How is it that our plans are realized if not by taking the steps necessary to realize them? This type of empirical evidence for free will abounds in everybody's experience.

Why then would some people toss out the abundant empirical evidence of their experience in favor of a hypothesis that renders them puppets on strings? And how do they account for their meals being prepared as planned?

Absolute determinism is absolute woo. The absolute determinist would have us believe that everything is predetermined -- including the meals he knows he shopped for in advance!?! If those meals were predetermined, when were they predetermined? Were they predetermined because he happened to buy the food that went into his meals? Were they predetermined when he developed a taste for the foods he bought? Were they predetermined by the foods locally available? You see the problem here? It's an infinite regression.

And there are plenty of absolute determinists who believe that everything since the Big Bang is predetermined. The subatomic particles that coalesced into atoms were predestined -- on an atom by atom basis -- to coalesce exactly as they did. Stars were predestined to form and eventually die exactly when they did/will. Life on Earth was predestined for mass die-offs and evolutionary extinctions and we are walking the Earth now as a direct result of a cascading chain of events that could not have occurred any other way.

Now, I might concede that it's possible that inanimate matter is entirely subject to mechanistic causality. They, after all, have only one possible reaction to any event. But still . . . it's far from a certainty. But if they want to extend that mechanistic causality to animate beings, then I think they're simply stuck on the idea of causality to the point that they see no relevant difference between a rock and a person.

This is just plain obstinate to me. It's woo. It's narrow-minded.

Permalink Reply by Atheist Exile on November 28, 2010 at 8:21am

I thought of something similar while reading this reply of yours, doone.

I was mistaken when I represented that, "The subatomic particles that coalesced into atoms were predestined -- on an atom by atom basis -- to coalesce exactly as they did." The fact is, that subatomic events occur at quantum scales and thus have random potentials at any given moment. In fact, since quantum randomness permeated the young universe before larger-scale atoms and molecules formed, one could say it would be impossible for the Big Bang to be the Prime Mover that set causality in motion. With this consideration, causality had no single starting point but began everywhere, locally, after the universe cooled enough for larger particles to form in classical (as opposed to quantum) scales.

Permalink Reply by Atheist Exile on November 28, 2010 at 8:37am

Hey! Just realized something else . . .

Quantum fluctuations (subatomic virtual particles that flit in and out of existence) are supposed to account for the majority of the mass in the universe. If that's true, then the notion of absolute causality needs to be toned down . . . because our mass -- or bodies themselves -- is never absolute. From microsecond to microsecond our mass varies by immeasurably small differences that, over time, "average out" to a more classical standard.

It might be that causality is predictable only to the extent that the classical realm is not influenced by the quantum realm.

Does that makes sense?

Permalink Reply by Matt Coulthurst on November 28, 2010 at 10:16pm

I had wished that Radu had moved his 'starting over' post here already as it sums up my position quite nicely - and far more eloquently than I could.

Any chance you'd like to comment further on some of those points, AE?

From a non-scientific point of view, lets say that at any given point in time you can imagine or predict possible outcomes to various actions and respond appropriately - yes? Wouldn't our responses be based on weighing the various elements of those predicted outcomes? If so, then on what basis have we formed the scale on which to weigh the elements? If not, then what is the basis for action, given that randomness is not free will?

Permalink Reply by Atheist Exile on December 3, 2010 at 7:18am

In you last paragraph, you lost me with "on what basis have we formed the scale on which to weigh the elements?"

The basis for action is your response to causality. By "your response", I'm talking about YOU, everything that you are: your unique identity . . . and . . . how that combines with causality to inform your thoughts and determine your actions. Nobody thinks or acts exactly like you. Nobody will walk the same path as you into the future. You are self-determined. If you have realistic ambitions or goals, you can make them happen if you have self-determination. You may also decide it's not worth the effort and opt for the path of least resistance. If so, that path is also self-determined. You are free, at any moment, to decide what to do with your life . . . what to make of yourself. Denying this fact is copping out on life.

Permalink Reply by Matt Coulthurst on December 6, 2010 at 1:00am

OK - most of your response there seems to be a description of free will rather than a clarification of how free will occurs, but that's cool - I'm not intending to be contentious.

To clarify what I said:

The possible outcomes of a situation includes elements a, b, c and d in varying proportions. On what basis would a person assign value to a, b, c, d in order to evaluate an optimal outcome?

If a person is lazy or ambitious (for example) what is the basis for how these traits have formed? Are they a product of free will also i.e do we choose to be a lazy person?

As I said, I'm not trying to be contentious. Nor am I trying to be obtuse - I'm trying to approach this from a basis of zero knowledge - if you'll humour me.

Permalink Reply by Atheist Exile on December 6, 2010 at 2:55am

The way I see it, everything I am -- my genetics, experience, education, ethics, intelligence and memory -- is a combination of the past and the present. My future is determined by my past and present. I am who I am. I will assign value to any proposition based on who I am AND (here's the important part) what I want. Is what I want determined? Yes. It's determined by who I am. But who I am is a deep and wide range of factors. I have goals and make plans based on who I am. Who I am and what I want are unique to me. This is what it is to be self-determined.

I'm not free to be a ballerina. I'm too big, old and ugly. I'm not free to be a black soul singer or Michael Jackson impersonator. I am, however, free to change my career path or take up marijuana again or quit adopting stray kittens. I am free to aspire to, plan for, and take steps toward anything within the scope of who I am. And if I do ANY of these things, it will be because I've seen a path to my destination and decided to pursue it.

THAT is self-determinism . . . and self-determinism is the only free will we have.

Permalink Reply by Radu Andreiu on November 29, 2010 at 12:52pm

You wrote in the other discussion:

"@Radu,

First of all, I've already asked, in my first reply to you, that you switch your participation to the "Free Will: Self-aware and Future-aware" discussion, which is more fleshed out with recent refinements. If you like, you can save effort by copying and pasting your above reply to that discussion and tweaking it, if necessary, to fit my post.

Second of all, as I've explained elsewhere, it was my INTENT to avoid science and philosophy as much as possible because I'm not a scientist or philosopher and because it doesn't matter to my explanation how the brain does what it does as long as you acknowledge that whatever it does precedes action and are thus causal factors to those actions . . . besides, scientific understand of the brain/mind is still sketchy and in its infant stage of understanding. Our imaging technologies have really boosted the neurological sciences but we've barely left the starting blocks where knowledge and understanding are concerned. Thus, citing relevant science at this stage is hardly more valuable than personal opinion.

Also: I've historically treated quantum mechanics as applicable (with rare exception) only to the quantum realm. In the classical realm, conventional wisdom has been that we can ignore or discount quantum activity. However, recent cosmological hypotheses like quantum fluctuations and dark matter, is weakening conventional wisdom on this issue. If quantum factors do "leak" into the classical realm, then all bets are off where predeterminism is concerned until we know how causality is affected.

So, please, move this discussion, as requested, so that we can develop our arguments from my most recent explanation."

Well, if you're not doing science, on what is your premise based? On faith, on intuition, or what? Plus, how can we talk about something that is scientifically inconsistent?

Anyway, I'll repost my earlier comment in case you want to respond to it, but the real issue here lies in not having a scientific description of this free will. If it's just the decisions (outputs) we make based on the information available to us (inputs) and the transfer function of our brain, then I agree, but it's not free at all, in the sense that we don't really control anything. This would be clear to anyone who ever tried implementing a decision making algorithm, an artificial intelligence if you want.
On the other hand, if you are talking about real control of our decisions, as in there is nothing, except this "free will", determining what we will decide upon analyzing the "world around us" (the inputs), then I stand by my affirmation that you haven't provided a plausible mean of doing so.


I want to start over, because I realize that I haven’t really helped to create a civilized discussion. All I want to do is engage in a reasonable discussion about an interesting topic, such as free will and consciousness. I will start by saying what I do believe, in the sense that I find it most likely due to my current knowledge of the world. My assessment of this knowledge that I posses is, in no way, a self-inflating one. Although I believe that I understand things well above the average man, this is only due to the low standard created by the scientific illiteracy of most people. I am glad, though, to be part of this community, one which cherishes honest, clear thinking in the pursuit of knowledge. I am also aware that my understanding of certain phenomena may be really far from the truth. There are many people who know a lot more than I do about certain domains, or even about most domains. I will also state what I do not believe, not because someone said I believed it, but just in case I am not clear enough. Again, with all the humility in the world, I have to tell you that my statements are just a reflection of how I understand science and I know I might very well be wrong. I just want to be shown why.

1. I do not believe that the Universe is absolutely deterministic. From quantum mechanics, it is clear that certain particles and quanta appear to behave in random ways. However, due to the statistical mediation of the probability functions of these behaviors, at the macroscopic level, things happen mostly in deterministic ways. That doesn’t necessarily mean that we can know exactly what will happen with a macroscopic if we knew all the information we could possibly know. A certain amount of randomness could exist.
2. I do believe that free will doesn’t exist, in the sense that we do not influence in any way anything. Our consciousness is just an illusion, though it may be an improper term. This is not a desire of mine, or based on faith. It’s the only thing that makes sense. Mathematically, no combination of any number of functions will ever result in something like free will. We are systems, which, like all systems, have transfer functions. Even when these transfer functions include random variables, the result is a random variable, meaning the transfer function determines its distribution, but its actual value is not determined by anything. However, if there is a way for free will to exist, please provide an explanation, or just an example!
3. I believe that our brains are biological computers, which take a number of inputs, compute them, and then throw out some outputs. These outputs are things like intention, desire, imagination, thoughts… every single thing that the brain does. Because of this, the fact that we can imagine or plan ahead, is not a proof of free will, because we don’t influence what we think at all. All thought processes are determined by everything that goes into the brain in its whole existence. The fact that we anticipate the future and decide how we’re going to behave is not an act of free will, because what we anticipated and what decision we made, they are the only outputs our brains would have given out due to the inputs. Even if there is room for randomness, this randomness doesn’t result in free will, because it can’t be influenced (after all, it’s randomness).

So, I don’t say that there is absolutely no way for free will to exist. I’m just saying that, until now, there is no explanation for its possible existence that makes sense. The fact that you are saying you provided such an explanation makes you responsible for proving it. I don’t think you managed to do that and I will tell you why I don’t think that. However, if there is something I don’t mention, please say it again.

“Because time is linear, the future hasn't happened yet. Future events unfold everywhere simultaneously, yet is locally unique.”
I think this claim is not substantiated with evidence. Moreover, the issue of simultaneity contradicts the theory of relativity, which clearly states that there is no such a thing. Also, maybe you can expand on how the future didn’t happen already with references to physics (because this is the science which deals with time).

“With this frame of reference, I propose that the future does NOT exist and is NOT predetermined everywhere, for everything.”
Similar to what I wrote above.

“The difference between the animate and inanimate modes of response to causality is that inanimate objects have only one potential reaction to an event while animate beings have variable potential reactions to an event.”
Due to the laws of physics, i.e. quantum mechanics, nothing has only one potential reaction to an event. However, there is a certain range of the possible reactions. For example, if I drop a ball on Earth, it will fall down, but the exact trajectory, on the Planck scale, can differ from one drop to another, even if all things are the same. This is the randomness that results from quantum mechanics, but it is not congruent with free will. Also, I don’t think that there is a distinction between animate and inanimate objects. We are all made of the same particles, which interact with certain randomness.

“Animate beings are much more complex and much less predictable than inanimate objects.”
This is because complex systems contain more variables. We simply do not know enough to predict exactly how a human, for example, will behave.

“Of these effects, imagination is most relevant to free will . . . because imagination can be prescient. We can extrapolate cause and effect into the future to imagine potential scenarios that might occur. We then evaluate these potential scenarios and gauge the likelihood (and to what extent) they might actually happen. This is, essentially, the process of planning. We use our experience and intelligence to estimate future outcomes, then plan the steps and contingencies necessary to best ensure -- or avoid -- those outcomes.”
As I said earlier, you didn’t prove that what we decide to do, upon imagining the future, is not determined by the current state of the part of the Universe which influences us. How do we influence our thoughts?

“How does planning relate to free will? Here's the interesting, awesome, part. Our ability to mentally anticipate cause and effect represents an advantage over causality. Causality must wait for the future to unfold in the present but we can keep steps ahead of causality by extrapolating it into the future. In other words, we can (in our imagination) go where causality can't . . . and bring back conclusions that greatly affect our decisions. Steered by these conclusions, our choices guide us, step by step, through potential futures.
When causality meets human intelligence, we make decisions based on forecasts of events likely in our futures. There are other causal factors involved, like experience, heredity, education, circumstances, etc., but it's prescient imagination that steers our decisions in self-directed ways. When determinism meets human imagination, it becomes self determinism: free will.”
Again, all decisions that we make are the result of our brains processing the information available and giving a unique, or random, result, one which we can’t influence.

“The compatibilist view sees free will as natural and within the confines of physical laws.”
It is my conviction that one has to prove scientifically one’s claims about the physical laws. I don’t see such a proof.

“But we KNOW we act with purpose. We don't stumble through life continually shocked to find ourselves doing things we don't want to do. That would make planning impossible! We KNOW we've planned our own dinners, careers, families, retirements and funerals. Our experiences represent continuous empirical evidence for free will.”
What we “know” is, again, the output of our brains. What we want to do is also an output of our brain. The brain is a system, specifically a computer, which has a transfer function. You have to prove that there is a function which can somehow have free will.




P.S. I keep asking for a scientific explanation, or evidence, for this free will. It seems to me that you keep steering away from science and math on this issue. After all, if you had even a hint of scientific insight on this free will stuff, you would have been famous, at least in the scientific community.

Remember, the burden of proof is on you, because you are the one making the positive claim that free will exists. I simply remain unconvinced by this due to no one actually providing at least a logical/mathematical model of this, let alone a testable one. And please, don’t say that math has nothing to do with this. Math has to do with everything and you have to show how some math functions (all of the laws of physics) can result in something that is not determined or randomly distributed (basically, something that is not a function itself).

Permalink Reply by Atheist Exile on December 3, 2010 at 5:25am

My reply is below.

Permalink Reply by Atheist Exile on December 3, 2010 at 5:23am

This post picks up from here.

First of all, Radu, I’m not going to mince my words.  I’m a basically lazy person.  I don’t take kindly to having my counterpoints ignored only to face the original objection again.  You need to reply to the counterpoint – not repeat your objection.  Not only are you making more work for me, you’re also wasting the work I’ve already performed.

So, on with the discussion . . .

You appear to be contradicting yourself.  You say the following things . . .

“I do not believe that the Universe is absolutely deterministic.”

“at the macroscopic level, things happen mostly in deterministic ways”

“A certain amount of randomness could exist.”

“Due to the laws of physics, i.e. quantum mechanics, nothing has only one potential reaction to an event.”

. . . yet you insist we humans are entirely deterministic.  Do you see the problem here?  According to you, the universe is not absolutely deterministic but we are!?!  How does that work, exactly?  Although I’m pointing out your inconsistency, I’m not really bothered by it because we humans ARE entirely deterministic.  I’ve said so over and over: it’s one of my main points.  And that, I believe, gets to the crux of our difficulty.  You don’t want to understand what I’m saying – or, at least, you keep ignoring what I’m saying.  You appear, instead, to be more interested in what you’re saying: which is pretty common among 20-year-olds. :-)

Your profile says you’re 20 years old.  Lucky you.  So that puts you past high school and into college.  Right?  So that undoubtedly means you have no peer-reviewed papers (scientific or otherwise) to your credit yet.  Right?  So why are you asking me to produce one when you’ve never produced one yourself?  It sounds like a specious ploy to completely write off my opinion based on a standard you’ve never met yourself.  The fact is, an idea is valid (or not) regardless of the scholarly trappings attached to it.

As I’ve already stated twice before: It doesn’t matter what neuroscientists think goes on in the brain (not that there is any consensus) as long as that activity precedes our actions.  And, of course, it does.  My explanation states that this mental process is a causal factor, like everything else leading up to our actions.  I’m not going to repeat this again, so try to let that soak in.

Despite the fact that I’ve already pointed out the ridiculousness of the notion that ANY kind of math is available to reliably predict specific human actions, you continue to pretend there is.  Take the following quotes, for instance . . .

“Mathematically, no combination of any number of functions will ever result in something like free will. We are systems, which, like all systems, have transfer functions. Even when these transfer functions include random variables, the result is a random variable, meaning the transfer function determines its distribution, but its actual value is not determined by anything.”

“Remember, the burden of proof is on you, because you are the one making the positive claim that free will exists. I simply remain unconvinced by this due to no one actually providing at least a logical/mathematical model of this, let alone a testable one. And please, don’t say that math has nothing to do with this. Math has to do with everything and you have to show how some math functions (all of the laws of physics) can result in something that is not determined or randomly distributed (basically, something that is not a function itself).”

“The brain is a system, specifically a computer, which has a transfer function. You have to prove that there is a function which can somehow have free will.”

“I believe that our brains are biological computers”

You’re a bit young to be a pedantic pedagogue, aren’t you?  The first 2 of these 4 paragraphs/sentences are pure bunk.  A bluff.  A desperate attempt to, somehow, save face (after I eviscerated your brain-math crap) and offer up some kind of math that might be used for explaining human decision making.  Can we get real here?  Transfer functions deal with communications theories and protocols, signal processing, optical imaging, seismology and other linear systems with single input and output ports or filters.

You must be a computer science student.  I retired, over 4 years ago, from a 30-year career in computers and networks; so I know you probably have some computer science exposure.  But here’s the thing: the human brain is THE most complex object known to science.  It is NOT a linear system and is not limited to single inputs and outputs, so forget about transfer functions, okay?  Nice try.  Better luck next time.

And don’t give me that Artificial Intelligence – Neural Networks – Learning Algorithms crap.  Using computers as a conceptual model of the brain has become so cliché that people easily confuse the model for the brain or vice versa.  Here’s a fact for you, Radu: (binary) math is the language of computers, not brains.  There are NO algorithms to explain human intelligence, consciousness, actions or free will.  Period.  Okay?  So cut it out already!

Oh, and here’s another gem . . .

“the issue of simultaneity contradicts the theory of relativity, which clearly states that there is no such a thing.”

. . . What I said, Radu, was that “Future events unfold everywhere simultaneously, yet is locally unique.”  The present moment is the present moment everywhere.  Now is now. Relativity only enters the picture when discussing inertial frames of reference.  If we had a telescope that could observe life on a planet 2 light years away, we would have to wait 2 years to witness the present moment on that planet.  But the present moment is, nonetheless, NOW both here and there.  Besides, relativity has nothing to do with free will.  I just mentioned it as part of a prelude to the main discussion.  In fact, I clearly stated that, “Nothing I've written above is essential to what follows -- I just wanted to frame free will in context of time and animate beings: of life.”  But, as usual, you ignore whatever suits you.

Later, you cite my sentence, “The compatibilist view sees free will as natural and within the confines of physical laws.”, then claim that, “It is my conviction that one has to prove scientifically one’s claims about the physical laws. I don’t see such a proof.”  But I didn’t claim anything about physical laws.  I only claimed that compatibilists see “free will as natural and within the confines of physical laws”.  Physical laws don’t rule out free will but absolute determinists try to paint the picture that way anyway.  Explaining HOW this happens is what my essay was all about . . . but you’re not really interested in that, are you?  Read it again, with an open mind, I do explain how it happens. Plenty of others understand it. Why not you?

Then there’s your denial in general.  You proclaim free will is an illusion but you don’t provide evidence (or logic) for your claim. Take these quotes of yours, for instance . . .

“I do believe that free will doesn’t exist, in the sense that we do not influence in any way anything.”

“Because of this, the fact that we can imagine or plan ahead, is not a proof of free will, because we don’t influence what we think at all. All thought processes are determined by everything that goes into the brain in its whole existence. The fact that we anticipate the future and decide how we’re going to behave is not an act of free will, because what we anticipated and what decision we made, they are the only outputs our brains would have given out due to the inputs.”

We don’t influence anything?  THAT is patently ridiculous.  Do you change clothes and take your wallet when you’re going out for the night?  Hmmmm.  I wonder why.  Could it be that you already know you want to look good and have money to spend?  No?  It’s an illusion?  Prove it.  What is the evidence for free will and what is the evidence that free will is an illusion?  Answer: evidence for free will is plentiful and evidence for the illusion of free will doesn’t exist at all.  Every time you make plans and then execute them, you’ve provided empirical evidence of free will.  YOU tell me -- what is the evidence that free will is an illusion?  Like I said, there is NONE.

And, finally, there’s the ultimate denial . . .

“I don’t think that there is a distinction between animate and inanimate objects. We are all made of the same particles, which interact with certain randomness.”

Now I ask you (and everybody else), does this dismiss the distinction between a rock and a human?  Give me a break, for Christ’s sake.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page