Free will re-redux

I still think the computer is a somewhat odd idea to be discussing in  this thread. At its heart, a computer is an abstraction, an idea, as expressed in Plato's theory of forms. Every example of a computer is in effect a "working model", an implementation of this abstract idea. Because of that, the "how it works" at the physical level is utterly unimportant. A computer can be implemented in so many ways, from a human being working with a pen and paper, to a mechanical device made from gears and levers, or electrical versions using switches and relays, to electronic or optical versions. To look at any of the physical devices tells us nothing. The only real "how it works" is embodied in the Platonic form.

It is very much like algebra. Or geometry. These things are abstract ideas. We can write them down on paper or draw diagrams and so on. These are physical implementations of algebra and geometry. But the real "how it works" of algebra and geometry is embodied in the abstract ideas.

But abstract ideas can encompass anything, for example multiple dimensions, multiple universes, anything at all. Thus to use the abstraction of "a computer" is to find ourselves floating in this abstract space of ideas. Within that space, anything would be allowable. It would not present any limitations on what would be possible.

I still think the computer is a somewhat odd idea to be discussing in  this thread. At its heart, a computer is an abstraction, an idea, as expressed in Plato's theory of forms. Every example of a computer is in effect a "working model", an implementation of this abstract idea. Because of that, the "how it works" at the physical level is utterly unimportant. A computer can be implemented in so many ways, from a human being working with a pen and paper, to a mechanical device made from gears and levers, or electrical versions using switches and relays, to electronic or optical versions. To look at any of the physical devices tells us nothing. The only real "how it works" is embodied in the Platonic form.

It is very much like algebra. Or geometry. These things are abstract ideas. We can write them down on paper or draw diagrams and so on. These are physical implementations of algebra and geometry. But the real "how it works" of algebra and geometry is embodied in the abstract ideas.

But abstract ideas can encompass anything, for example multiple dimensions, multiple universes, anything at all. Thus to use the abstraction of "a computer" is to find ourselves floating in this abstract space of ideas. Within that space, anything would be allowable. It would not present any limitations on what would be possible.

Okay, so now I can ask two questions: Please describe how the computer abstraction works, and please describe how any particular implementation works. I would be happy to get an overview of an answer to either of these questions as they pertain to a free decision.

In the abstract, how does a free decision progress from multiple choices to the final choice?

How does my brain/mind actually make a free decision?

Note, again, that I can give detailed answers to both of these questions about a computer.

~~ Paul

Note, again, that I can give detailed answers to both of these questions about a computer.

~~ Paul

Please provide these answers. Thanks.

Please provide these answers. Thanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine

http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/zSeries...ep2005.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microarchitecture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microprocessor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_electronics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunneling

If your complaint now is that the article on quantum tunneling is not "how-y" enough, please note that I am not asking for a description of free will at that level. A description at the level of a Turing machine would be just fine. My problem is not that I don't understand the physics of free will. My problem is simply that I do not understand the high-level repertoire of decision-making methods that are available to the free agent.

~~ Paul

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine

http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/zSeries...ep2005.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microarchitecture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microprocessor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_electronics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunneling

If your complaint now is that the article on quantum tunneling is not "how-y" enough, please note that I am not asking for a description of free will at that level. A description at the level of a Turing machine would be just fine. My problem is not that I don't understand the physics of free will. My problem is simply that I do not understand the high-level repertoire of decision-making methods that are available to the free agent.

~~ Paul

I thought you were going to give a very detailed description of how the computer makes a decision?

This all seems largely irrelevant to the question of free will.

edit: Perhaps some specificity will help - Bob asks for Alice's hand in marriage. What is the supposed computational process to explain her decision?

I thought you were going to give a very detailed description of how the computer makes a decision?

I did. It's all in those Wikipedia articles and hundreds more.

This all seems largely irrelevant to the question of free will.

It's only relevant in that people keep asking what sort of a "how" I'm looking for. It's as if people really believe that the amount of "how" information for a computer is no more plentiful than the amount for free will.

edit: Perhaps some specificity will help - Bob asks for Alice's hand in marriage. What is the supposed computational process to explain her decision?

I'm not claiming that we make decisions like computers. Again, I'm simply pointing out that there are mass quantities of "how" information for computers, both on abstract concepts and implementations. I just want a little such information for free decisions.

~~ Paul

I did. It's all in those Wikipedia articles and hundreds more.

It's only relevant in that people keep asking what sort of a "how" I'm looking for. It's as if people really believe that the amount of "how" information for a computer is no more plentiful than the amount for free will.

I'm not claiming that we make decisions like computers. Again, I'm simply pointing out that there are mass quantities of "how" information for computers, both on abstract concepts and implementations. I just want a little such information for free decisions.

~~ Paul

It's not a question of whether the "how" information for a computer is plentiful.

It's whether it is relevant. You just said above that you can provide a detailed description of decision making in computational terms, so we're just waiting for that now.

Let me try to make this a tad more formal.

1. A free decision is based on the current state of affairs.

2. However, a free decision is not necessitated by the state of affairs.

3. Nevertheless, a specific decision is made.

4. Therefore, there must be a factor W (for "will") that is also involved in making the decision.

5. Factor W is not a random factor in the sense of having no causes.

6. In what way does factor W contribute to the decision making?


~~ Paul

OK

A Free Decision (FD) would be a single selected outcome following from multiple choices.  Each selection option, being independent as an outcome, but with some propensity of being manifest and of interest to the agent.

A specific decision (SD) would be the outcome of the biophysics, framed by a possible future, as a targeted outcome.  The intention of the SD would be a vector of behavior --> enacting the conditions needed to make manifest the object of intent.

Will (W) is harder to pin down other than being like a force in physics, but is not.  Let's just call it action as changing probability in the surrounding environs.  Measuring the biophysics is well established in sports and competition.  Winners and losers are strong semantic conditions.  Nothing speaks to the meaning of outcome  like losing.

I offer as evidence, old Country Wisdom: "Its not the dog in the fight, but the fight in the dog."

In sports the "want to", guts or will power of players is always gauged as a contribution.  

W would be a propensity to command and control behavior to manifest SD.  SD would be aimed at affodances important to the animal.  Using basic ideas of Cybernetics - being the sciences of Command and Control - I hope to be able to support this framing.   Intent can be used as a programmed vector in simulating biological life and ecosystems.  Its reality is in its changing of entropy and binding probabilities into future outcomes.

what do you think?

It's not a question of whether the "how" information for a computer is plentiful.

It's whether it is relevant. You just said above that you can provide a detailed description of decision making in computational terms, so we're just waiting for that now.

Oh, sorry, my fault. I said:

"Okay, so now I can ask two questions: Please describe how the computer abstraction works, and please describe how any particular implementation works. I would be happy to get an overview of an answer to either of these questions as they pertain to a free decision."

I didn't mean how the answers concerning computers pertain to free decisions. I meant how the questions of abstraction and implementation pertain to free decisions. The antecedent of "they" is "questions," not "answer."

Crappy writing on my part.

~~ Paul

OK

A Free Decision (FD) would be a single selected outcome following from multiple choices.  Each selection option, being independent as an outcome, but with some propensity of being manifest and of interest to the agent.

A specific decision (SD) would be the outcome of the biophysics, framed by a possible future, as a targeted outcome.  The intention of the SD would be a vector of behavior --> enacting the conditions needed to make manifest the object of intent.

Will (W) is harder to pin down other than being like a force in physics, but is not.  Let's just call it action as changing probability in the surrounding environs.  Measuring the biophysics is well established in sports and competition.  Winners and losers are strong semantic conditions.  Nothing speaks to the meaning of outcome  like losing.

I offer as evidence, old Country Wisdom: "Its not the dog in the fight, but the fight in the dog."

In sports the "want to", guts or will power of players is always gauged as a contribution.  

W would be a propensity to command and control behavior to manifest SD.  SD would be aimed at affodances important to the animal.  Using basic ideas of Cybernetics - being the sciences of Command and Control - I hope to be able to support this framing.   Intent can be used as a programmed vector in simulating biological life and ecosystems.  Its reality is in its changing of entropy and binding probabilities into future outcomes.

what do you think?

I don't see why each selection option is independent. Note that your definition of FD simply assumes freedom.

I don't understand the second paragraph.

How does will change the probability in the environs?

I don't understand the final paragraph.

~~ Paul