Free will re-redux

Ridiculous. Same-old same-old. At this point, I think you really are trolling. Re-engaging was obviously pointless. He's all yours, Sci.

Well it depends on if there is an argument against free will beyond a personal dissatisfaction with the irreducible aspect.

I'm not sure I need to convince someone there are non-random, non-deterministic events.

After all I haven't been convinced that something can happen "randomly", for no reason at all. I still hold that determinism needs to be grounded/determined, that only a reason for why all the other possible effects don't happen is what distinguishes an actual deterministic cause-effect relation from one where the 100% probability distribution into that single effect shifts so what follows in relation to the cause is shared between two or more possible effects.

I don't think observation of cause-effect relations (in computers or particle decay) is enough. The deterministic aspects of the universe are arguably Fine Tuning (so Mental Causation), and the stochastic parts as Pure Chance is just absence of explanation as noted by the physicist Stapp ->

Consciousness & Chance

Stapp sees the physical world as a structure of tendencies or probabilities within the world of the mind. He thinks that the introduction of an irreducible element of chance into nature via the collapse of the wave function, as described in most forms of quantum theory, is unacceptable. The element of conscious choice is seen by him as removing chance from nature.

So I've yet to see why I should believe the experience of free-willing is either deterministic or random, when the former is just a special case of the latter and the latter by definition is the abandonment of explanation. Even if someone doesn't agree with me and thinks determinism without a Determiner makes sense...well that doesn't seem to be the case empirically:

There is actually no strict determinism at any "level" of the physical world. Determinism is an abstract theoretical ideal that simplifies physical systems to allow the use of logical and mathematical methods like differential equations. The macroscopic statistical "determinism" we see is the consequence of averaging over extremely large numbers of microscopic particles. Statistical determinism is a corollary of the probabilistic "law of large numbers" when dealing with a great many independent events.

So if the choices are between Randomness and Free Will, I'd go with the latter without even considering any deeper metaphysics. After all, going a bit astray from the shallow end of the pool, Causation and Consciousness are arguably the only two intrinsic properties so I can easily conceive of the latter driving the former.

All to say if "conceive" is someone's personal feeling, then we all have opinions on what is conceivable.

The word needs to be translated into some criteria, so we can know if it can be met. There's no forcing a space in the irreducible aspect of Free Will, by definition a Free Will that can be broken down into random/deterministic components is neither Free nor a Will.

So that's an "agree to disagree" situation, just in time for the holidays. 

[Laird]

Well it depends on if there is an argument against free will beyond a personal dissatisfaction with the irreducible aspect.

I'm not sure I need to convince someone there are non-random, non-deterministic events.

You don't. It's not the sane understanding that when we make decisions, we... make decisions... that needs to be defended. It's the delusional proposition that when we make decisions, we aren't really making them, they're actually entirely out of our control, according to some asinine argument, the proponent of which refuses to even advance in direct, positive terms, leaving it up to us to make the implicit explicit (as on our wiki page).

Paul, if you have an assertive positive case to make for why we lack free will, then make it. Otherwise, leave this thread.

You don't. It's not the sane understanding that when we make decisions, we... make decisions... that needs to be defended. It's the delusional proposition that when we make decisions, we aren't really making them, they're actually entirely out of our control, according to some asinine argument whose proponent is too sly and manipulative to even advance in direct, positive terms.

Paul, if you have an assertive positive case to make for why we lack free will, then make it. Otherwise, leave this thread.

I think his argument is ->

- I know there's determinism because physics, namely the classical level that allows one to build a computer.

- I know there's randomness because physics, namely the quantum level where things are indeterministic.

- I only know there's free will from my inner experience, so what is actually going on is one of the first two.

However we only know the first two from experience as well, and the indeterminism of the QM level is "under" the former so we only have adequate determinism...in other words based on current physics it's all indeterministic in a non-random way or it's random,  the latter meaning it's all happening for no reason at all and [could suddenly] shift in the ways Nail mentions ->

Since random fluctuations from disorder to order are physically rare, the likelihood that anything like the sun or even our galaxy would just suddenly pop into existence would be unimaginably rare, and would likely fall apart immediately due to further random motion. It would even be statistically possible for a human brain to pop into existence just long enough to think and then disperse.

 -Nail, Thomas. Being and Motion

So the fact we can build computers - seemingly an argument for determinism - is more a sign of non-random, non-deterministic motion which is further supported by the fact the indeterminism in QM is resolvable to known predictable distributions. (It also takes consciousness, without which the physical universe at least is just one big featureless churn so Everything Physical is the cause of Everything Physical.)

From there I think one can read the mental powers paper I mentioned a few posts above, along with the previously mentioned papers on causation:

Free Will and Mental Powers

Real Dispositions in the Physical World

A Powerful Theory of Causation

Causation is Not Your Enemy

This thread almost functions like Zen.  I try to understand randomness in terms of cause and effect and end up looking for the original cause, wherein all conceptual thought suddenly ceases.

This thread almost functions like Zen.  I try to understand randomness in terms of cause and effect and end up looking for the original cause, wherein all conceptual thought suddenly ceases.

The crazy thing is it seems, in physics at least, that the randomness - well I'd say non-random indeterminism-  is what preserves cause and effect:

How Quantum Randomness Saves Relativity

Chad Ortzel

Without that indeterminacy, quantum physics would allow the sending of messages faster than the speed of light, with disastrous consequences for the whole idea of causality, which is central to the operation of physics.

Ridiculous. Same-old same-old. At this point, I think you really are trolling. Re-engaging was obviously pointless. He's all yours, Sci.

I truly do not understand why you think that I'm trolling just because I'm asking the same question. Don't you think it's possible that I haven't heard an answer that makes sense to me?

~~ Paul

So I don't think we should get ahead of ourselves but I would answer exercising of a conscious entity's (irreducible?) ability to select from a set of possibilities.

Isn't that just a restatement of the question? How does a conscious entity freely select from a set of possibilities?

1) Show that the alternatives - Determinism, Randomness, Pedesis - fail to account for any kind of causation or at least mental causation. Then show why the last option, Conscious Possibility Selection, is the most rational explanation for why of all live possibilities for any cause only one effect is actualized.

If you believe that determinism fails to account for any kind of causation, then I very much doubt you can make the case that anything else accounts for causation. Down at the bottom, you will not be able to go any deeper.

It does seem we're running into this word "conceive" and what it means. I can't see how anyone can conceive of Physicalism being true, nor can I see how one conceives of Randomness. I used to be able to conceive of Determinism, or thought I did, until I was asked to consider why of all the things that could happen only one effect came from a particular set of causes.

Can't you conceive of how a computer works correctly consistently? Just look at one go.






As far as randomness is concerned, I can conceive of there being no causes for an event.






What I cannot conceive of is making a decision by a means other than computer + picking random numbers. I can conceive of various different sources for such a decision, but not the decision itself. I do not know what to insert between the final moment of indecision and the first moment of decision.




~~ Paul

You don't. It's not the sane understanding that when we make decisions, we... make decisions... that needs to be defended. It's the delusional proposition that when we make decisions, we aren't really making them, they're actually entirely out of our control, according to some asinine argument whose proponent is too sly and manipulative to even advance in direct, positive terms.

Paul, if you have an assertive positive case to make for why we lack free will, then make it. Otherwise, leave this thread.

They are only out of our control if you assume that the only control is this free will that you cannot explain.

Why are you demanding a positive case from me when you do not have one for free will? Do you think that all the philosophers debating libertarian free will are also trolls?

~~ Paul

https://philpapers.org/archive/bouwdp

I think his argument is ->

- I know there's determinism because physics, namely the classical level that allows one to build a computer.

- I know there's randomness because physics, namely the quantum level where things are indeterministic.

- I only know there's free will from my inner experience, so what is actually going on is one of the first two.

However we only know the first two from experience as well, and the indeterminism of the QM level is "under" the former so we only have adequate determinism...in other words based on current physics it's all indeterministic in a non-random way or it's random,  the latter meaning it's all happening for no reason at all and [could suddenly] shift in the ways Nail mentions ->

But here's the thing: I'm not asking you for a proof of the existence of libertarian free will. I'm only asking for a vague description of how it happens. And surely you will admit that I can give you much more than a vague description of determinism and randomness.

I'm asking for something much less powerful than what we've got for determinism and randomness.

~~ Paul

I'm asking for something much less powerful than what we've got for determinism and randomness.

~~ Paul

Well I think what you are looking for are the papers I mention at the end of this post. That's as close to a "how does free will work in the sense a computer works?" answer I can think of.

But there are no reasons to think determinism and randomness, in the sense of existing "just because", are something actually a part of reality.

The first is just adequate determinism as the classical rests on the quantum, and the latter makes more sense as non-random and non-determined for reasons I've given above.

The most poignant one being that random is the idea that something happens for absolutely no reason at all which is by definition irrational.

Why are you demanding a positive case from me when you do not have one for free will? Do you think that all the philosophers debating libertarian free will are also trolls?

He's asking what the actual argument against free will is.

For example let's say Idealism is true and Everything is Consciousness. What exactly would be the reason one should think their experience of deciding is somehow logically distinct from what is actually happening?

The exclusive random/determinism dichotomy?

Or to put it another way is there an actual argument against free [will] that Idealists should worry about? Or Theists who say free will is a gift from God who is the Ground of Being, King/Queen of All Reality?

Or is this just a personal feeling, that you can accept events having no cause but cannot accept a mind being the cause?

I mean no skeptic seems to be running to convince me that Physicalism is coherent, and I can give a very specific reason for incoherency -> Physicalism means Cogito Ergo Sum is false:

“A more general version of this question is this: How can one clump of stuff anywhere in the universe be about some other clump of stuff anywhere else in the universe—right next to it or 100 million light-years away?

…Let’s suppose that the Paris neurons are about Paris the same way red octagons are about stopping. This is the first step down a slippery slope, a regress into total confusion. If the Paris neurons are about Paris the same way a red octagon is about stopping, then there has to be something in the brain that interprets the Paris neurons as being about Paris. After all, that’s how the stop sign is about stopping. It gets interpreted by us in a certain way. The difference is that in the case of the Paris neurons, the interpreter can only be another part of the brain…

What we need to get off the regress is some set of neurons that is about some stuff outside the brain without being interpreted—by anyone or anything else (including any other part of the brain)—as being about that stuff outside the brain. What we need is a clump of matter, in this case the Paris neurons, that by the very arrangement of its synapses points at, indicates, singles out, picks out, identifies (and here we just start piling up more and more synonyms for “being about”) another clump of matter outside the brain. But there is no such physical stuff.

Physics has ruled out the existence of clumps of matter of the required sort…

…What you absolutely cannot be wrong about is that your conscious thought was about something. Even having a wildly wrong thought about something requires that the thought be about something.

It’s this last notion that introspection conveys that science has to deny. Thinking about things can’t happen at all…When consciousness convinces you that you, or your mind, or your brain has thoughts about things, it is wrong.”

- Alex Rosenberg, An Atheist's Guide to Reality

I think Rosenberg is correct on every part save the last -> What science has to deny is that Physicalism is a valid metaphysical position, because the the idea of Cogito Ergo Sum being false is absurd.

Is there a similar reason why the Idealist should worry that free will is incoherent?