1 edit
Originally posted by humyIt's fine to not form a specific opinion on the 'cause' of free will. But you stated very clearly that free will doesn't exist at all. Free will does exist, and the scientists studying it are real scientists asking real questions. Think about all you can learn about free will when you hook brains up to a functional MRI.
No opinion due to insufficient data is a perfectly valid position and often the only right one.
8 edits
Originally posted by wildgrassunless a self-contradiction can exist in reality, that would be nothing to learn. And MRI only directly images physical states, not directly mental states. So the MRI results always need to be interpreted with assumption for mental states; such interpretation can never be real evidence for 'free will'. How would you expect those MRI images to be different from what they are if there was no 'free will'? -if no difference, then that isn't evidence for 'free will'. If some difference, then explain to me in what way different.
Think about all you can learn about free will when you hook brains up to a functional MRI.
In science, for something to be 'evidence', it must be an observation that confirms a prediction made by a theory if that theory were true but also, and equally importantly for it to be validly defined as 'evidence' for that theory, that theory must be such that, if it were false, that same observation must either be logically impossible or at least be improbable
1 edit
Originally posted by humyYour belief in free will changes your decision making [1]. Can that result be explained by physical laws? How would you explain it?
unless a self-contradiction can exist in reality, that would be nothing to learn.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26985880
5 edits
Originally posted by wildgrass'free' of what?
[b]Your belief in free will changes your decision making
+ read the latter part of my last post.
How would you expect those MRI images to be different from what they are if there was no 'free will'?
If no difference, then they aren't evidence of 'free will' because, as I just said;
"In science, for something to be 'evidence', it must be an observation that confirms a prediction made by a theory if that theory were true but also, and equally importantly for it to be validly defined as 'evidence' for that theory, that theory must be such that, if it were false, that same observation must either be logically impossible or at least be improbable"
Originally posted by humyFree will exists because we have the ability make decisions. If you don't like the term, use volition instead which apathist brought up as a synonym. The meaning is the same. Simply put, it seems absurd to declare that once we acquire all the necessary knowledge of the underlying physics, we'll be able to explain all the properties of free will which at the moment we can’t explain. How do you know that? It requires a more complex understanding of the whole system. How does the mind/brain/body process, store, edit, and recollect memory, predict future events, compute possibilities and probable outcomes, and then decides on a turkey sandwich for lunch?
unless a self-contradiction can exist in reality, that would be nothing to learn. And MRI only directly images physical states, not directly mental states. So the MRI results always need to be interpreted with assumption for mental states; such interpretation can never be real evidence for 'free will'. How would you expect those MRI images to be different from ...[text shortened]... were false, that same observation must either be logically impossible or at least be improbable
The research on free will concerns that process of forming a thought and executing a decision. It is very sophisticated and they are learning a lot. Specific foci in our brains access past memories, current environments, and potential future rewards and/or punishments. A surprising recent finding was that conscious awareness comes late to the scene in thought processes. In fly/mousee/rat models, you can knock out or mutate proteins, or use small molecule inhibitors, to target mechanisms which are supposedly involved in decision making processes and see if that changes their behaviors.
Clearly there are logical fallacies throughout these philosophical arguments, so I agree with you there. For example, many scientists subscribe to determinism, however you cannot prove determinism as a cause of free will either. Of course everything with cognitive research will be correlated with outcomes and behaviors. It's the nature of the field of behavioral science, but that does not mean it's pseudoscience. Studies on the subject are not trying to prove or disprove the existence of free will. Rather, they are asking specific questions about how we make decisions.
Originally posted by wildgrassActually I disagree completely. We know enough about thought processes to discuss what free will is. I doubt any new discoveries would have any impact on that whatsoever.
It requires a more complex understanding of the whole system. How does the mind/brain/body process, store, edit, and recollect memory, predict future events, compute possibilities and probable outcomes, and then decides on a turkey sandwich for lunch?
It is my belief that the vast majority of decisions involve some relatively deterministic processes in the brain and some amount of randomness - both in the decision making and the original formation of the structures that make the decision. And the role consciousness plays almost certainly varies depending on how long you take to make a decision. Snap decisions inform the consciousness afterwards, more deliberated decisions include feedback from the consciousness. Also the consciousness is not as distinct as one might like to think.
The the real question with regards to free will is what you actually mean by it. Some people would say that if the brain is fully deterministic, then there is no free will. Now science has not rule that out and probably never will.
Others would say that if the brain includes random inputs, then there is no free will. Again, science has not ruled that out and probably never will.
The only really viable definition of free will is where the brain makes decisions - whether via deterministic or random processes - but without direct overriding influence from external factors.
So how do you define it?
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadThis does not seem like complete disagreement. I defined free will just as you did, "the ability to make decisions". To me, since "determinism" cannot be proven, it is a mostly pointless philosophy concept from a scientific standpoint. You seem to agree. And if consciousness is actually indistinct, then how could that ever jive with determinism? How about decisions that involve potential future outcomes? How can it be predetermined by the immutable laws of physics if the event didn't happen? Furthermore, it can't be entirely random since we make decisions through a combination of genetics, experiences, environment, future testing, etc. What remains is the ability to make a decision, i.e. free will.
Actually I disagree completely. We know enough about thought processes to discuss what free will is. I doubt any new discoveries would have any impact on that whatsoever.
It is my belief that the vast majority of decisions involve some relatively deterministic processes in the brain and some amount of randomness - both in the decision making and the orig ...[text shortened]... esses - but without direct overriding influence from external factors.
So how do you define it?
I disagree with you however, about our current knowledge of thought processes. At a very fundamental level, do we even know how thoughts are formed? How are they stored, accessed, edited and recollected during decision making? Why are some stored but not others? What are the neural mechanisms of language, story telling, social interactions, morality? To my knowledge this remains a complete black box outside of unsubstantiated theories about fluid waves and ion gradients. fMRI methods have added a key "where" piece to the puzzle, but it's raised lots and lots more questions as it only lights up the general areas of the brain involved in different types of thought.
6 edits
Originally posted by wildgrassI am an AI expert and I sometimes program computers to make decisions (in response to input data ). I bet you wouldn't agree that that means the computer is given 'free will', right? If so, then ability to make decisions is not what you mean by 'free will'. But then what DO you mean by 'free will'?
Free will exists because we have the ability make decisions.
If you don't like the term, use volition instead
'violation' of what? what is the point of replacing one nonsense meaningless term with another nonsense meaningless term?
What you need to do is not try and explain the meaning of a vague term with just one vague word, which explains nothing, but rather to explain it properly with sentences that break down its meaning and so to change its vague meaning to a clear meaning.
Originally posted by humyHumy, you've made this mistake about 7 times now.
I am an AI expert and I sometimes program computers to make decisions. I bet you wouldn't agree that that means the computer is given 'free will', right? If so, then ability to make decisions is not what you mean by 'free will'. But then what DO you mean by 'free will'?If you don't like the term, use volition instead
'violation' of what? wh ...[text shortened]... ns nothing, but rather to explain it properly so to change its vague meaning to a clear meaning.
V O L I T I O N.
The word is NOT violation. NOT violation.
8 edits
Originally posted by chaney3Oh my dyslexia is showing ( + bad eyesight ) . That is one I will have to remember to look out for in future.
Humy, you've made this mistake about 7 times now.
V O L I T I O N.
The word is NOT violation. NOT violation.
OK;
But that is no better because I looked it up and its said meaning is "the faculty or power of using one's will" which still seems a bit vague. Does the meaning of "will" there mean "free will"? If so, how does that explain what you mean by "free will"? If that word "will" there mean "desire", again, how does that explain what you mean by "free will"? I can program my AI computer to have states labelled as 'desire' (along with 'intentions'; this is sometimes albeit vary rarely done in what is called "software agents" ) and have the same practical effect in the decision-making process; does that mean it has 'free will'?
And do you define 'free will' as the ability to make decisions? If so, when I program my computer to make decisions, do you call that giving my computer 'free will'?
Originally posted by humyWhat are you afraid of, humy. You are large and in charge, this is a good thing.
'free' of what?
+ read the latter part of my last post.
How would you expect those MRI images to be different from what they are if there was no 'free will'?
If no difference, then they aren't evidence of 'free will' because, as I just said;
"In science, for something to be 'evidence', it must be an observation that confirms a prediction made by a theory ...[text shortened]... were false, that same observation must either be logically impossible or at least be improbable"
Originally posted by wildgrassMy disagreement was specifically on the topic of whether or not studying the exact mechanics of the brain had any bearing on the discussion of free will.
This does not seem like complete disagreement.
I defined free will just as you did, "the ability to make decisions".
That is fine. Just keep in mind though that others have other definitions, so be sure to clarify when it is not clear what definition they are using to avoid talking past each other.
To me, since "determinism" cannot be proven, it is a mostly pointless philosophy concept from a scientific standpoint. You seem to agree.
It cannot be disproven either, so I think it is worth mentioning in any such discussion that it is one possibility - and that any concept of free will that is incompatible with it, is at risk of having no supporting evidence.
And if consciousness is actually indistinct, then how could that ever jive with determinism?
I don't see any conflict there.
How about decisions that involve potential future outcomes? How can it be predetermined by the immutable laws of physics if the event didn't happen?
Now you are confusing me. Can you explain that in more detail?
Furthermore, it can't be entirely random since we make decisions through a combination of genetics, experiences, environment, future testing, etc.
That depends on the type of decision and what one means by 'random'. If I asked you to think of a country, you would almost certainly not pick Kyrgyzstan, but the one you do pick probably has a significant random component in the choice.
I disagree with you however, about our current knowledge of thought processes. At a very fundamental level, do we even know how thoughts are formed? How are they stored, accessed, edited and recollected during decision making? Why are some stored but not others?
We don't need to know for a discussion of the fundamentals of free will. It is irrelevant. We could discuss free will with regards to a computer, or a black box. Knowing exactly how the brain works is not relevant.
What are the neural mechanisms of language, story telling, social interactions, morality?
You are mixing high level effects with low level mechanisms. That is like asking questions about atomic nuclei when discussing fluid dynamics.
To my knowledge this remains a complete black box outside of unsubstantiated theories about fluid waves and ion gradients.
Well you obviously haven't studied the topic. Don't declare something unknown till you do.
12 edits
wildgrass
I really want you to answer just this one question;
You define 'free will' as "the ability to make decisions" (please correct me if I got that wrong).
So, according to you, does an AI (Artificial Intelligence) programmed to make decisions (like many of them are), and therefore has "the ability to make decisions", have what you would call 'free will'?
1 edit
Originally posted by apathistIts not clear what you think is a false dichotomy. Please clarify.
False dichotomy.
Change of subject, but I'm wondering what you tell your kids. No, bumps, you have no choice. Is that where you go?
As far as I recall, I have never discussed free will with my son. If I did, I would be honest and not lie about it. And since I have at no point suggested that I believe we have no choice, that is certainly not what I would tell him. I would say more or less exactly what I have said in this thread.