Free will re-redux

Just to tie this back to something Typoz said that I think got glossed over:


But it becomes clear when applied to an actual meaningful decision that these algorithms are not explanations for how to make that decision. 

Exactly, the meaningful tipping-point is when the mental output structures the information (into an object) and in so doing, is changing the probability waves in the surrounding informational environment.  When waffling, one might imagine a signal interfering with itself.  But once selected by will and then enforced later, there is a measurable real-world change in the environment.

Anyway, still not sure about the whole pattern thing...

Pattern. What other word has subject, object, similarity, difference, boundaries, choice, purpose, probability, truth, mind and matter built into it?

I guess the only other word is consciousness...

Pattern. What other word has subject, object, similarity, difference, boundaries, choice, purpose, probability, truth, mind and matter built into it?

I guess the only other word is consciousness...

So Patternism is a kind of Idealism?

I guess the issue I see is if Pattern means Structure, then doesn't it seem like there needs to be more than Structure?

As Stephen Hawking once said:

“Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? ... Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?”

Or is Pattern what brings the Everything-at-Once chaos of the Abyss into recognizable form and entities? In the sense that causality is a kind of constraint, an ordering of possibilities becoming actualities?

While I think you capture the futility of the conversation I don't think free will is any more mysterious than quantum randomness or the resolution of that randomness into macro-level predictable behaviors.

But like randomness, determinism, or pedesis we're talking about possibility selection (even if there's just one possibility as in determinism), save with conscious agents. So if free will exists it's a property/ability of conscious agents, and if it's truly free it's an irreducible property. Similarly even deterministic explanations - [which have to explain why other possibilities don't happen] - have to ultimately be either because of God or are a brute-fact of Nature.

If we have an explanation for why/how cause-effect relations occur across reality that's where we'd find an explanation for free will.

Though it wouldn't be an explanation like how a computer works, anymore than the explanation for why particles behave indeterministically in some instances and deterministically in others would be found at that level.

I think free will is more mysterious, precisely because we apparently have no explanation of how it works. Even though we cannot explain why certain things happen at the very basis of QM, we can explain the hell out of QM otherwise. And deterministic computers. And stochastic processes, right down to probabilities. We have many explanations of cause-effect relations.

But even more mysteriously, we can't even enunciate a vague notion of what it means to make an indeterminate decision that is not random. It's not that we have no detailed explanation, we don't even have a logical description of the concept.

I was down to two choices for breakfast cereal. Then, based on my mood, wants, and desires, I selected one of the cereals by . . . poof! . . . using free will. There isn't even a phrase to replace the "poof!" Using what inputs and methodology did my mind iterate/relax to a final decision? How was one choice rejected?

~~ Paul

I think free will is more mysterious, precisely because we apparently have no explanation of how it works. Even though we cannot explain why certain things happen at the very basis of QM, we can explain the hell out of QM otherwise. And deterministic computers. And stochastic processes, right down to probabilities. We have many explanations of cause-effect relations.

But even more mysteriously, we can't even enunciate a vague notion of what it means to make an indeterminate decision that is not random. It's not that we have no detailed explanation, we don't even have a logical description of the concept.

I was down to two choices for breakfast cereal. Then, based on my mood, wants, and desires, I selected one of the cereals by . . . poof! . . . using free will. There isn't even a phrase to replace the "poof!" Using what inputs and methodology did my mind iterate/relax to a final decision? How was one choice rejected?

~~ Paul

At this point I think this is just aesthetic preference. If we look at the choice between Lucky Charms and Bran Flakes, we can factor in desire for health vs sweet tooth and so on...but if anything I think having consciousness having power over the selection of possible outcomes beats the alternatives:

1. Selection happens stochastically, for no reason at all. This obviously doesn't make any sense, as Nail points out it[']s a kind of ex nihilo causal explanation.

2. Selection happens deterministically, because after deliberation some choice wins out. But this winning out is treating qualitative feelings (my desires and preferences) as quantitative force vectors being summed up to one final direction pointing to a choice. Beyond that why is the decision constant? And if this is how reality works why was there deliberation at all?

The constraining of possibilities to one choice in the cause-effect relationship exists for no reason at all. Why I say determinism is just a special kind of randomness, and ultimately just as arbitrary.

At this point I think this is just aesthetic preference. If we look at the choice between Lucky Charms and Bran Flakes, we can factor in desire for health vs sweet tooth and so on...but if anything I think having consciousness having power over the selection of possible outcomes beats the alternatives:

1. Selection happens stochastically, for no reason at all. This obviously doesn't make any sense, as Nail points out its a kind of ex nihilo causal explanation.

2. Selection happens deterministically, because after deliberation some choice wins out. But this winning out is treating qualitative feelings (my desires and preferences) as quantitative force vectors being summed up to one final direction pointing to a choice. Beyond that why is the decision constant? And if this is how reality works why was there deliberation at all?

The constraining of possibilities to one choice in the cause-effect relationship exists for no reason at all. Why I say determinism is just a special kind of randomness, and ultimately just as arbitrary.

I'm happy with aesthetic preference and consciousness being involved, but how does that preference lead to my choice of cereal in a manner different from (a) always choosing Bran Flakes when the same preference situation exists; and (b) flipping a coin?

I'm not sure I understand your claim that the constraining of possibilities to one choice happens for no reason at all. We understand the cause-effect relationship for thousands of kinds of events. If you are referring to the lowest-level reason that starts a long chain of events, I might be willing to agree that it's a just-so reason. But so, apparently, is my choice of cereal.

If, on the other hand, you are claiming that we do not actually understand any cause-effect relationships, then I don't know what you mean by "understand." If you want to know *the-ultimate-how* mass bends space-time, then you will be forever frustrated. But why do you feel less frustrated by not knowing *the-ultimate-how* you chose Bran Flakes?

~~ Paul

I'm happy with aesthetic preference and consciousness being involved, but how does that preference lead to my choice of cereal in a manner different from (a) always choosing Bran Flakes when the same preference situation exists; and (b) flipping a coin?

I meant your aesthetic preference for believing arbitrary events are more acceptable than consciously chosen outcomes.

I'm not sure I understand your claim that the constraining of possibilities to one choice happens for no reason at all. We understand the cause-effect relationship for thousands of kinds of events. If you are referring to the lowest-level reason that starts a long chain of events, I might be willing to agree that it's a just-so reason. But so, apparently, is my choice of cereal.

Like I said in my post to Hurm referencing the Matrix we catalogue a variety of cause-effect relationships, that doesn't mean we have an understanding of causal power.

If, on the other hand, you are claiming that we do not actually understand any cause-effect relationships, then I don't know what you mean by "understand." If you want to know *the-ultimate-how* mass bends space-time, then you will be forever frustrated. But why do you feel less frustrated by not knowing *the-ultimate-how* you chose Bran Flakes?

Well I was contending the claim that free will is incoherent, which is different than making an affirmative argument for free will. 

As I said at the end of the 75-page thread I'd rather talk about causation than free will, since most people have such different ideas about causation that a discussion of free will is pointlessly repetitive. In fact we're at the point now, rehashing the same arguments...

'The eternal hourglass of existence is turned over again and again, and you with it, speck of dust!'
 -Nietzsche

I meant your aesthetic preference for believing arbitrary events are more acceptable than consciously chosen outcomes.


Like I said in my post to Hurm referencing the Matrix we catalogue a variety of cause-effect relationships, that doesn't mean we have an understanding of causal power.


Well I was contending the claim that free will is incoherent, which is different than making an affirmative argument for free will. 

As I said at the end of the 75-page thread I'd rather talk about causation than free will, since most people have such different ideas about causation that a discussion of free will is pointlessly repetitive. In fact we're at the point now, rehashing the same arguments...

'The eternal hourglass of existence is turned over again and again, and you with it, speck of dust!'
 -Nietzsche

I have no aesthetic preference for random events. I have a preference only because I do not understand how freely chosen ones can possibly work. It is difficult to have a preference for something I don't understand.

So let's frame the question in terms of causation. I can picture causation in the deterministic sense: The current state of affairs leads inexorably to a specific effect. Like with a computer. I can also picture an event occurring at random, like the decay of an alpha particle, and then that event leading to subsequent events (e.g., detection). I can also imagine that not all random events are truly random, but then the only other choice for me is that they are deterministic, but we don't understand why.

What I cannot picture is a third way in which the current state of affairs can produce the next state of affairs. By the "current state of affairs" I mean the *entire* state of affairs, including my complete mental state. I cannot picture an act of will arising from my mental state and then causing some effect in a third manner.

Now, I'm happy to have people say that I'm just a rigid guy who has grabbed onto two kinds of causes and won't let go. But I need something plausible in order to let go. It's actually not so many hanging on for dear life as it is simply not hearing another scenario that makes sense.

~~ Paul

Kitchen benchtop still looks pretty convincing.

Do you want to hear us say a magical soul decides for us Paul? Otherwise again the best you're getting is what we've put forward. If that's not good enough than yknow that's okay. 

To everyone else, we're at 20 pages now. We all know that this was a bait thread, Paul was fishing to restart the long winded conversation and it's exactly what's happening. He said he wasn't convinced by the last SEVENTY FIVE pages so I think it's a waste of all of our time to keep on with it.

Kitchen benchtop still looks pretty convincing.

Do you want to hear us say a magical soul decides for us Paul? Otherwise again the best you're getting is what we've put forward. If that's not good enough than yknow that's okay. 

To everyone else, we're at 20 pages now. We all know that this was a bait thread, Paul was fishing to restart the long winded conversation and it's exactly what's happening. He said he wasn't convinced by the last SEVENTY FIVE pages so I think it's a waste of all of our time to keep on with it.

Hmmmm...I don't know if Paul is trolling, but I do think his last post is just a reiteration of his claim/conjecture that all cause-effect relations are deterministic or random. Thus it does seem like we're going in circles.

But I am still not convinced this dichotomy is exclusive or even an actuality, rather to me it looks like a case of Whitehead's "Misplaced Concreteness" where the limitations of mathematical modeling are projected onto reality. For me it's just inconceivable that there are arbitrary causal events, whether they're random or deterministic...the latter really just being, IMO, a special kind of the former.

There isn't a need for a soul, necessarily, so long as one doesn't believe in the dichotomy. For example here's a talk by the materialist John Searle:




IIRC he never mentions the dichotomy, rather suggesting that randomness at the lowest level of reality doesn't mean that the higher levels built atop it have to be random. I believe what he's suggesting goes back to the George Ellis essay I had mentioned earlier, where randomness allows for top-down causation. The neuroscientist Peter Tse had similar ideas presented years back but I've not kept up with his work.

The non-materialist but atheist anti-Survival neuroscientist Raymond Tallis also has written about he conceives humans can have free will, with a start of this thinking in this essay but more fully developed in his book On Time & Lamentation.

So more people who don't accept the dichotomy as exclusive even without any reference to Psi, God, or souls. Throw those in and it's easier to see, IMO, why proponents wouldn't lose any sleep over the claim of an exclusive randomness/deterministic dichotomy.