Free will re-redux

That's of course exactly the reaction he's hoping for. The reality is that his question and variants of it have been answered multiple times in multiple ways over multiple threads over at least two forums, yet he continues to ask it. That's rhetorically effective but intellectually bankrupt, and bordering on trolling (as he effectively admitted early on in this thread), and it's why I haven't participated in this thread except to point out at the start that there's no satisfying him - not because satisfactory answers can't be provided (they have been), but because he's not looking for them, and simply ignores them when they are provided. It's gamesmanship, not Socratic dialogue.

I have zero idea what you are referring to when you say that the question has been answered. Various proposals have been made for the source of free decisions, but none for the way in which they are made. If there is an answer, would you deign to summarize it in a few sentences? Certainly no one has done so in this thread, but instead asserted that they do not know what I'm asking for.

Perhaps a link to a specific post from another thread? Or a link to a paper that matches your thoughts on the matter?

Or, maybe you could simply post your description of what I'm looking for so that Sciborg or someone else could address it.

~~ Paul

That's of course exactly the reaction he's hoping for. The reality is that his question and variants of it have been answered multiple times in multiple ways over multiple threads over at least two forums, yet he continues to ask it. That's rhetorically effective but intellectually bankrupt, and bordering on trolling (as he effectively admitted early on in this thread), and it's why I haven't participated in this thread except to point out at the start that there's no satisfying him - not because satisfactory answers can't be provided (they have been), but because he's not looking for them, and simply ignores them when they are provided. It's gamesmanship, not Socratic dialogue.

I will have to take a better look then because so far I haven't seen anyone post a mathematical or logical proof demonstrating the mechanics behind how an indeterminate yet nonrandom decision can even happen. Its all just been flowery philosophical fluff that means nothing. And then Paul asks the exact same question again, and then more philosophical nonsense that proves nothing, rinse and repeat. If there is a logical or mathematical proof in here that I've missed I'd love to see it.

I am actually working on one myself utilising my previous node-path uncertainty model which seems to have a point, at infinity, where path prediction certainty becomes zero which would actually make it possible to have a decision path which was  mathematically indeterminate, yet non random and I've noticed some extra things you can do with that which might actually have real world applicability in neuroscience, or other non-infinite node arrays if I'm correct. It more or less offloads that infinite or "liquefied" system to the weighting that nodes use to decide when to pass to other nodes, and if so, and if neurons have quantum systems that affect the synapse process, such as affecting excitation threshold or spiking, then you might be able to have a limited node array that partially relies on an indeterminate yet non random process, making the resulting array itself at least partially the same. But I'm still working on it and I'm not exactly spending all my time on it.

I will have to take a better look then because so far I haven't seen anyone post a mathematical or logical proof demonstrating the mechanics behind how an indeterminate yet nonrandom decision can even happen.

No one has posted a proof that every event must be exclusively deterministic or random.

Not even a flowery philosophical one.

No one has posted a proof that every event must be exclusively deterministic or random.

Not even a flowery philosophical one.

No, but many many examples exist of how a deterministic or random choice happens. Which is all that matters.The field of computer science provides quadrillions of proofs of that every moment. The same does not exist for indeterministic, non random choices to the best of my knowledge, which makes them look like they don't exist. And thus by extension there are only deterministic or random choices.

It's not like people haven't had ample time or opportunity to demonstrate otherwise or anything. Since writing one down would end the argument rather quickly. This hasn't happened, instead there's just been discussion of things that don't pertain to the 'how' in any meaningful way, only random other things around the argument which amount to philosophical fluff. That's what I've seen so far. If you've got a proof that you can link to or write, do it. Until then the argument is pointless.

No, but many many examples exist of how a deterministic or random choice happens. Which is all that matters.The field of computer science provides quadrillions of proofs of that every moment. The same does not exist for indeterministic, non random choices to the best of my knowledge, which makes them look like they don't exist. And thus by extension there are only deterministic or random choices.

It's not like people haven't had ample time or opportunity to demonstrate otherwise or anything. Since writing one down would end the argument rather quickly. This hasn't happened, instead there's just been discussion of things that don't pertain to the 'how' in any meaningful way, only random other things around the argument which amount to philosophical fluff. That's what I've seen so far. If you've got a proof that you can link to or write, do it. Until then the argument is pointless.

What is the "how" for a random choice?

When something "deterministic" happens, what is the "how" of why something else didn't happen[?]

Give a computer science proof that you think applies.

edit: As for demonstrating otherwise, IMO that's been done over and over. But apparently everything from Skeptiko, everything in the last 75 page thread, none of it was a real "how" answer.

Why I want to know what the "how" question is at this point. Because it apparently is not "How can something be neither deterministic nor random?".

[Laird]

I have zero idea what you are referring to when you say that the question has been answered.

That's because you're invested in not having any idea. And no, this time I won't be joining Sci in playing your sorry little game of "But I don't understand. That doesn't answer my question. Here it is again." I've invested enough hours in the past into it to know by now that it's never-ending. If you guys are simply enjoying the social dynamics of it, or if Sci appreciates the challenge of trying to satisfy the perpetually dissatisfied, then you guys stick with it and keep at it, but it clearly leads nowhere intellectually.

For the record, I answered the question in the article I wrote on the PQ wiki in response to your implied argument: In defence of free will. I linked to that article towards the end of the last free will thread. In it, I invited the forum "skeptics" to create their own page advocating their own (counter-)arguments should they see fit. Your response? Ignore it and start a new thread claiming the question hasn't been answered. [Edit: To be fair, I only added the section of the article which explicitly answers your question six months after first publishing and linking to the article, but on the other hand, that addition was eleven months ago.]

Cue: "That's not good enough, I still want to play my game", in which case, have at it buddy, but count me out.

As for Mediochre's demand for a "mathematical proof", I don't see how such a thing could be remotely applicable in this context.

As for Mediochre's demand for a "mathematical proof", I don't see how such a thing could be remotely applicable in this context.

Given mathematics is a language that can only model things deterministically or probabilistically, seems like a case of misplaced concreteness to me?

I would say "proof" just means argument, but apparently philosophical arguments don't count...

The door for a nonrandom indeterministic factor is wide open.

~~ Paul

See here.

Well recalling that I am simply saying free will isn't incoherent** would "God" count as this factor? Or if one prefers, the "Ur-Mind" if Objective Idealism or "Unity of Will & Force" if Top-Down Panpsychism is true.

**By which I mean there is at least one possible world where one conscious agent can select from possibilities, in the sense that this being [could have done] otherwise.

[Laird]

Given mathematics is a language that can only model things deterministically or probabilistically, seems like a case of misplaced concreteness to me?

I'm not sure, Sci - feel free to elaborate if you want to, or just chalk it up as a failure of imagination on my part.

I think your responses to Mediochre above have been spot on though.

[Edited out a little unnecessary facetiousness.]

I answered the question in the article I wrote on the PQ wiki in response to your implied argument: In defence of free will.

This is really good, though I think you might be giving too much credit to the idea of the supposed dichotomy. Admittedly I think I forgot to reply to your request for input some time ago - apologies.

But for the sake of argument it seems to me someone asking the question "Is there a factor that allows for non-deterministic, non-random decisions?" is holding to an assertion that we - at least as our starting point - have to accept that:

1) Determinism is a real thing.

2) Randomness is a real thing.

3) Free will would then need to be a special exception to 1) & 2).

But I think this is clearly wrong.

"Randomness", as in the idea that things happen for no reason, is letting go of the idea that the world is intelligible.

Determinism, which just assumes that there are cause-effect relations that hold but with no explanation for why those particular relations don't change, is really just a special kind of randomness.

As for 3), it seems to me there is at least one picture of the world - Subjective Idealism - where the question is instead how choices are limited rather than enabled. Why can't I reverse time, why I can't fly, etc.

But it's not just proponents who have criticized the dichotomy, even materialists have challenged this. Thomas Nail for example notes that indeterminism comes in from the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle but since "randomness" makes no sense, there's still a relation between elements of reality ->

Heisenberg thus showed that even at the quantum level, matter in motion is both relational and uncertain, or pedetic.

Pedesis may be irregular and unpredictable, but it is not random. What is interesting about movement is not simply that it is pedetic, but that it is through pedesis and turbulence that metastable formations and emergent orders are possible. By contrast, the ontology of randomness is quite bleak. In a purely random ontology, all of matter would be moving randomly, and thus nonrelationally, at all times.
   -- Nail, Thomas. Being and Motion (p. 73). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.

Quentin Mellisoux goes in that latter direction, saying since under Physicalism there can't be any external pressure in terms of "Laws of Nature", it's only Luck that there's any patterns at all. Determinism is thus impossible, at least insofar as it would be a guarantor of causal relations.

I think Mellisoux's idea seems radical, but it follows directly from the determinist's own argument ->

1) Determinism says that for anything that happens, it must happen for a reason.
2) So when something happens, there must be a reason why something else didn't happen.
3) If the solution to 2) is an appeal to Laws of Nature, we can ask why those don't change.
4) There is, under Physicalism, thus no reason why things happen one way rather than another. It's all just Chance/Luck/Randomness.

The proponent is then simply echoing the physicist Henry Stapp in saying that Consciousness can ground why things happen and why things don't happen which removes the incoherent Chance aspect from reality.