Free will and determinism

You are saying that science has a problem if we do not have libertarian free will. Perhaps so, but that does not answer my question. (Won't it be just as good if the selections are made at random?)

I am not arguing whether we have free will. I am asking how a free decision is made.

~~ Paul

I'm actually saying that science would disintegrate - end indeed never have got off the ground - in the absence of free will!

Almost every experiment could be faked. For example, if Ohm's law were false, it would be easy to devise an 'experiment' that would make it appear true. All you have to do is carefully pick your measurement points.

Now this is not about faking - but suppose the brain has no free will and follows an algorithm instead. In that case the experimental report provides no evidence at all.

David

But then it can also be argued that the jury do not really choose to find somebody guilty and the judge does not really choose the sentence.

True, but the point is, I suppose, that philosophers/scientists role out the idea that free will does not exist, only where it is handy. If they elaborated on the theme too much, people would simply revolt against paying them!

I suppose I object to radical ideas that are never explored to reveal what they would mean if they were true.

David

What's the question, in your words?

Could we ever actually ascertain that, Sci? Ultimately, however, I suspect Paul would want to blame "god" (who has apparently not given us enough free will), hence the desire to get rid of him. 

I would say the only question that really matters is this.  Can human's somehow be conscious when the physical substrate deemed necessary for consciousness by reductionist materialist science, is absent (non functioning). 

The answer to that is yes, beyond reasonable doubt but not proven..yet. Paul can continue for now, because of the bolded words alone. He might even make it to the 'check out' without having to admit he was wrong, but I don't know what good it will do him as he will be still subject to the very same phenomena as everyone else is. 

Nice to see him back, though, it's a change of scenery, isn't it.

My interpretation of Paul's question is that he is seeking a procedural/logical/mechanistic explanation of how a free decision can be made.

I think most of us are comfortable with cause and effect relationships.  Determinism if you will.  The notion of a computer has been mentioned.  If/then logic is likely straight forward to all of us.  Its understandable, it can be reduced, its comforting.

The notion of random is a tough one for me.  I won't pretend to have a nuanced take on whether there are truly random events in the universe or not.  I have a vague appreciate of quantum physics and the notion of probabilities.  But at least when thinking about something being "random" its usually something "out there" so to speak.  The decay of a particle, etc.  If you don't fully know if something is random or as yet just not fully understood in terms of cause and effect, you can treat your understanding of it as random as a sort of placeholder.

But when we start to talk about our own subjective consciousness and contemplating whether our thoughts are "free", that's different.  So Paul is trying to understand, again, the process or method by which a free decision comes into being.  He seems to want a logical explanation for how that might even occur; a philosophical definition even.

If I'm at all near what Paul means (which I may not be at all, lol), I can appreciate the sentiment.

The reason I don't find it "interesting" per se, is that I do not think there is an answer.  I think its intractable.  It won't be satisfying as to why I think this, but it relates to my personal, rather unformed metaphysics.  Let's just say I am not a materialist reductionist and I'll leave it there.

I'm actually saying that science would disintegrate - end indeed never have got off the ground - in the absence of free will!

Almost every experiment could be faked. For example, if Ohm's law were false, it would be easy to devise an 'experiment' that would make it appear true. All you have to do is carefully pick your measurement points.

Now this is not about faking - but suppose the brain has no free will and follows an algorithm instead. In that case the experimental report provides no evidence at all.

David

So you're suggesting that all of science could be an accidental scam because if we don't have free will we could be rigging all the experiments. Even when we use true random number generators?

The same is certainly true of various forms of idealism. First, we have no proof that an idealism world has free will. Second, perhaps we've all subconsciously decided to rig the results.

Seems to me that any brain algorithms would tend to evolve to represent and interact with the world realistically. I doubt that the science-y parts of our brains would evolve to trick us, while the rest evolves to protect us.

~~ Paul

Could we ever actually ascertain that, Sci? Ultimately, however, I suspect Paul would want to blame "god" (who has apparently not given us enough free will), hence the desire to get rid of him. 

I would say the only question that really matters is this.  Can human's somehow be conscious when the physical substrate deemed necessary for consciousness by reductionist materialist science, is absent (non functioning). 

The answer to that is yes, beyond reasonable doubt but not proven..yet. Paul can continue for now, because of the bolded words alone. He might even make it to the 'check out' without having to admit he was wrong, but I don't know what good it will do him as he will be still subject to the very same phenomena as everyone else is. 

Nice to see him back, though, it's a change of scenery, isn't it.

I don't understand what you're saying here. What am I supposedly blaming god for?

Why do you say that the necessary physical substrate is absent?

What might I admit I'm wrong about?

Thanks for the welcome!

~~ Paul

My interpretation of Paul's question is that he is seeking a procedural/logical/mechanistic explanation of how a free decision can be made.

I think most of us are comfortable with cause and effect relationships.  Determinism if you will.  The notion of a computer has been mentioned.  If/then logic is likely straight forward to all of us.  Its understandable, it can be reduced, its comforting.

The notion of random is a tough one for me.  I won't pretend to have a nuanced take on whether there are truly random events in the universe or not.  I have a vague appreciate of quantum physics and the notion of probabilities.  But at least when thinking about something being "random" its usually something "out there" so to speak.  The decay of a particle, etc.  If you don't fully know if something is random or as yet just not fully understood in terms of cause and effect, you can treat your understanding of it as random as a sort of placeholder.

But when we start to talk about our own subjective consciousness and contemplating whether our thoughts are "free", that's different.  So Paul is trying to understand, again, the process or method by which a free decision comes into being.  He seems to want a logical explanation for how that might even occur; a philosophical definition even.

If I'm at all near what Paul means (which I may not be at all, lol), I can appreciate the sentiment.

The reason I don't find it "interesting" per se, is that I do not think there is an answer.  I think its intractable.  It won't be satisfying as to why I think this, but it relates to my personal, rather unformed metaphysics.  Let's just say I am not a materialist reductionist and I'll leave it there.

Yes, this is my quandary.

What is there in indeterminism besides possible true randomness? And how does it participate in the making of a free decision?

~~ Paul

Could we ever actually ascertain that, Sci?

We'll see. Maybe philosophers like Helen Steward and neuroscientists like Tononi & Koch will see a question in there that makes sense?

My interpretation of Paul's question is that he is seeking a procedural/logical/mechanistic explanation of how a free decision can be made.

I think most of us are comfortable with cause and effect relationships.  Determinism if you will.  The notion of a computer has been mentioned.  If/then logic is likely straight forward to all of us.  Its understandable, it can be reduced, its comforting.

The notion of random is a tough one for me.  I won't pretend to have a nuanced take on whether there are truly random events in the universe or not.  I have a vague appreciate of quantum physics and the notion of probabilities.  But at least when thinking about something being "random" its usually something "out there" so to speak.  The decay of a particle, etc.  If you don't fully know if something is random or as yet just not fully understood in terms of cause and effect, you can treat your understanding of it as random as a sort of placeholder.

But when we start to talk about our own subjective consciousness and contemplating whether our thoughts are "free", that's different.  So Paul is trying to understand, again, the process or method by which a free decision comes into being.  He seems to want a logical explanation for how that might even occur; a philosophical definition even.

If I'm at all near what Paul means (which I may not be at all, lol), I can appreciate the sentiment.

The reason I don't find it "interesting" per se, is that I do not think there is an answer.  I think its intractable.  It won't be satisfying as to why I think this, but it relates to my personal, rather unformed metaphysics.  Let's just say I am not a materialist reductionist and I'll leave it there.

Thanks for that...but I would disagree with a lot of this as starting premises:

1. Not comfortable with cause and effect. I mean in my daily life I can use it like I use it when playing even the most bizarre video game - find the before-conditions (causes) that produces the desired after-event (effects). But to quote the blurb from Mumford & Anjum's Getting Causes From Powers:

Causation is everywhere in the world: it features in every science and technology. But how much do we truly understand it? Do we know what it means to say that one thing is a cause of another and do we understand what in the world drives causation?

Explanations for how a computer work seem to me, to either be abstractions or based on physics...the latter doesn't tell us much or arguably anything about causation as per Bertrand Russell (and others who could be cited as necessary). For a more in-depth but short look:



2. Quantum phenomena don't seem purely random to me [as] that would mean there's no probability distribution for half-lives, etc. Something that's unpredictable in the particular events but somewhat predictable in the aggregate seems like the physics' parallel of a person whose character is ascertained even though each individual decision isn't knowable. Even some materialists like Thomas Nail think the physical moves in ways that are neither determined nor random.

If there is an assertion that everything that is indeterministic is random...would want to see some kind of argument/proof for that?

I actually think determinism would need something to ground the 100% predictability if all prior states are known. Otherwise it's just a special kind of randomness that gives an illusion of predictability so far [but] which could be subject to change. If the binding force are Laws of Nature, why don't those change? If the answer is God...that seems more like all causation is mental causation...

3. No mechanistic explanation is possible for phenomena that are non-mechanistic in nature. As in, if you break down free will into non-free pieces it isn't free. This is why I think the question is not coherent, without even getting into the criteria being someone's personal satisfaction rather than some pre-stated standard.

If you want a picture of the world where free will is possible/plausible, there are a variety of options mentioned in the other thread and this one too. Here's one, for example, going down the papers from top to bottom:

The Theory of Causal Significance

Real Dispositions in the Physical World

A Powerful Theory of Causation

Causation is Not Your Enemy

Free Will and Mental Powers

This seems to meet the critera, insofar as it can be ascertained from what the question seems to be? [Just to note, this isn't even getting into the implications of Psi + Survival...]

You should check in with a philosopher like Helen Steward and/or a neuroscientist team like Tononi & Koch.

Is IIT inherently non-deterministic, or is Tononi starting to change his position?

David