Free will re-redux

No, because of random influences.

I'm not looking for quite such an adventurous challenge, but if that is necessary, great. I'm really just looking for a description of making a free choice. Even a vague outline would be good. Heck, I don't even care of the "mechanism" for making such a decision is conscious. I'm not sure why it would have to be.

~~ Paul

Then I think the reason you are not getting the response you are asking for is that any choice or decision we put forward as freely made will be rejected by you. We know this. We know why ... because we consider an example of a free choice is one made spontaneously or by conscious preference but you will say that reduces to a physical brain state. There is no way to convince you that a mental state is not the same as a physical brain state. 

Or I am just not getting what you are asking and this thread will go on for another 50 pages without getting anywhere.

Then I think the reason you are not getting the response you are asking for is that any choice or decision we put forward as freely made will be rejected by you. We know this. We know why ... because we consider an example of a free choice is one made spontaneously or by conscious preference but you will say that reduces to a physical brain state. There is no way to convince you that a mental state is not the same as a physical brain state. 

Or I am just not getting what you are asking and this thread will go on for another 50 pages without getting anywhere.

Those are more like categories or components of free choice. I'm looking for the steps that I go through to make a free choice. Like I can give you the steps of a computer program (though, of course, they are deterministic). Or the steps of a recipe. How do I get from two possible choices to a final choice in a free manner? I don't need a crisp sequence of steps, just a general idea.

I'm happy to suspend any requirement that mental state = brain state. I also agree that preference can be a factor in my choice. But how does my preference lead to a free choice? It can't just be that preference P produces choice C invariably, because that is deterministic. So my preference is not the whole story.

If the answer is just that the free choice is "spontaneous," then I must admit I'll be unsatisfied.

~~ Paul

P.S. Let me repeat the various forms of my question I posted above.

I am looking for a description of how the mind moves from the free possibility of multiple choices to a single choice.

I have two choices. The final choice is not determined. The final choice is not a coin flip. How is the final choice made?

What does my mind do in order to select from two choices indeterministically?

When I have two choices and can freely choose either one of them, without the final choice being dictated by the current state of the world, what does produce the final choice?

Those are more like categories or components of free choice. I'm looking for the steps that I go through to make a free choice. Like I can give you the steps of a computer program (though, of course, they are deterministic). Or the steps of a recipe. How do I get from two possible choices to a final choice in a free manner? I don't need a crisp sequence of steps, just a general idea.

I'm happy to suspend any requirement that mental state = brain state. I also agree that preference can be a factor in my choice. But how does my preference lead to a free choice? It can't just be that preference P produces choice C invariably, because that is deterministic. So my preference is not the whole story.

If the answer is just that the free choice is "spontaneous," then I must admit I'll be unsatisfied.

~~ Paul

P.S. Let me repeat the various forms of my question I posted above.

I am looking for a description of how the mind moves from the free possibility of multiple choices to a single choice.

I have two choices. The final choice is not determined. The final choice is not a coin flip. How is the final choice made?

What does my mind do in order to select from two choices indeterministically?

When I have two choices and can freely choose either one of them, without the final choice being dictated by the current state of the world, what does produce the final choice?

I really am at a loss to understand what you are talking about. What is your definition of free (or determined, for that matter)? Does the possibility that there are historical factors involved in making the decision constitute some form of determinism? What about if I have the choice between two flavours of ice cream. I can go with chocolate because I know I like chocolate. But I like vanilla too. The current state of the world has nothing to do with my choice, however. I might just be in the mood for vanilla. I might just imagine the taste and think - oh, yes, vanilla this time.

As I say, I don't really think anyone here is following your line of reasoning. Maybe you should tell us how you think it works?

What about if I have the choice between two flavours of ice cream.

If I may be forgiven for tossing in an aside, it seems we're back in the choice of A or B where there is no great difference between the two. What interests me much more is something else. I'm really most interested in change.

When I say change, I mean someone can continue in a same path for years. Then they strike out in a different direction and become transformed. This is something which takes not just a moment's choice, but persistent acts of will repeatedly to avoid drifting back to the status quo. This is not Paul's question, nor is it Sci's, but something which seems to me personally relevant to the human condition. It does involve acts of will.

I mentioned transformation. I'm referring to something like spiritual transformation, though it may be expressed through the physical world, it need not be perceived as spiritual. It is a type of spiritual alchemy - instead of turning base metal into gold, it is operating at the level of the self. Interestingly, though all the potions and recipes of mediaeval alchemists did not actually create gold, what they sought was not impossible. We now know how to transmute one element into another. And along the way they laid the foundations of modern chemistry too. But there was always a spiritual or mystical undercurrent to the ideas too. Newton for example, regarded as one of the founders of modern science, was an alchemist too.

So - I'm not questioning whether such transformation is possible, I am interested in it taking place.

I do understand what Paul wants. We are arguing that you can choose something, freely, via your own deliberation.

He is saying that it is impossible to make a choice without something influencing it, making it deterministic, or making the decision randomly.

If a person was in a white room from the day they were born, free of influence, and two buttons appeared, one on either wall, how would they come to a decision to pick either one? They could just pick one out of the blue, but how, what deliberation would let you decide which one to pick if all of a sudden you had two options with NOTHING ELSE to influence the decision. You could say genetics but that would be deterministic, you could say you could just pick one but that would be random. How does one decide freely which one to pick. I would say spontaneous, but then that would be dissapointing to Paul.

Though, thinking about more it this feels like a bit of a spot, because you're denying free will under the basis that there's not a good explanation on how it occurs, but then free will is inherently felt and experienced by everyone, including knowing when an action was not free like losing your temper, your face twitching or someone zapping you in the head. 

It's like denying consciousness because we can't explain it in quarks and atoms, or cavemen denying gravity because they don't have the barest comprehension of what it is. Just because we currently lack a proper explanation does not mean it does not exist or apply.

Thinking about what you want to know more I think that the freedom comes from the ability to change. Even with all pressures applying to you picking a certain option, you are able to switch to choosing another. Unlike determinism where there was never an option, you do have the option to choose something different. Something else COULD have happened. But then I'm not looking up answers to your question, somebody else will probably have something better.

I do understand what Paul wants. We are arguing that you can choose something, freely, via your own deliberation.

He is saying that it is impossible to make a choice without something influencing it, making it deterministic, or making the decision randomly.

If a person was in a white room from the day they were born, free of influence, and two buttons appeared, one on either wall, how would they come to a decision to pick either one? They could just pick one out of the blue, but how, what deliberation would let you decide which one to pick if all of a sudden you had two options with NOTHING ELSE to influence the decision. You could say genetics but that would be deterministic, you could say you could just pick one but that would be random. How does one decide freely which one to pick. I would say spontaneous, but then that would be dissapointing to Paul.

I hate to chime in but quick reminder this can't be the case because we were told the randomness/deterministic dichotomy was set aside.

Also see Typoz's response regarding meaningful vs meaningless choices.

I hate to chime in but quick reminder this can't be the case because we were told the randomness/deterministic dichotomy was set aside.

No I know that's why you guys are so confused. Paul is only asking WHAT makes the decision. Because even a conscious agent NEEDS a reason to pick either option. He's asking how do they decide without the reason, like a prime mover, what makes someone choose either option if they aren't influenced by anything. Because without influence the hypothetical person will just sit there like a rock, or will pick one randomly.

Well, it's certainly one where I can't easily imagine that there may have been some brain function or that contamination may have been a factor.

But I'm lazy these days, so it's easier to sit back and wait for some fantastic news.

~~ Paul

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01995-w

That's interesting. So is annihilation 'bad' news for you, then ?

No I know that's why you guys are so confused. Paul is only asking WHAT makes the decision. Because even a conscious agent NEEDS a reason to pick either option. He's asking how do they decide without the reason, like a prime mover, what makes someone choose either option if they aren't influenced by anything. Because without influence the hypothetical person will just sit there like a rock, or will pick one randomly.

Says who?

Paul is asking for a process, for a logical, sensical sequencing of how a free decision is made.  He wants to look inside the machine of consciousness and be shown the step-wise mechanics of choice.  You seem to have picked that up with the highlighted sentence above.

Perhaps there isn't a process (or "reason" as you put it), at least in the sense of our current understanding of "process"?  Perhaps consciousness and free will are intractable to our traditional, process-oriented, scientific method, logic-based method of understanding physical things?  Perhaps its something else; something that doesn't conform to our traditional approach to knowledge of physical things.

Of course it may not be and the ever present promissory note from science will ultimately bear fruit.  Perhaps free will be shown to not exist and to be deterministic and/or "random".  But the underlying request remains incoherent to me:  If we have free will and it is NOT reducible to determinism and/or randomness how would it ever be shown in process form; in a flow chart?  The request itself seems to require a causal chain of some type which, again, seems to make the request incoherent/inconsistent.

Perhaps I'm missing something.