Free will re-redux

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.

You'll recall that I have suspended any claim that there is a dichotomy. But that does not somehow lead to discovering or understanding a third sort of decision-making possibility.

My last post most certainly is not simply a rehash of that claim. You requested that we talk about causation. I did. I cannot imagine a method of causation other than the two I listed. Listing them is not a claim that those are the only two.

It's almost as if one just has to decide on faith. But I will read the Ellis and Tallis essays and see if it has anything to offer.

~~ Paul

My last post most certainly is not simply a rehash of that claim. You requested that we talk about causation. I did. I cannot imagine a method of causation other than the two I listed. Listing them is not a claim that those are the only two.

Seems to me - and apparently Smaw - you just said the same claim a different way.

That you don't think there are more than random events & deterministic events is something you've said quite a few times.

But plenty of people don't even bother to mention this dichotomy so not sure why it would carry weight without an argument explicitly showing why that dichotomy is exclusive.

I don't think he made the same claim, I just think that you are all going in circles. Paul goes "Okay how do things happen if not for determinism and randomness", we go "Okay this is how things might occur without determinism and randomness" and Paul goes "Okay so things might happen without determinism and randomness, but HOW do they happen?"

It's a pointless circle. Sure, you have to take it on faith Paul, done. We can't disprove free will but we can't exactly figure out right now how it might occur, but it very tangibly exists for every person (unless of course you don't feel free in which case I advise going to see a specialist since not being in control of your own actions is generally a cause for concern), so you simply pick an opinion and wait. Entire conversation, over.

Also, I don't think Paul is trolling, but he very purposefully started this thread knowing there is NO answer considering he wasnt convinced last time. I also don't trust his integrity considering he doesn't respond to me calling out how stupid and pointless this entire discussion is, only you guys so it can KEEP going.

I don't think he made the same claim

What's different this time? Seems like it's just a variation on claiming all events must be deterministic or random thus free will can't exist.

I can't conceive of just-so determinism as that to me is just randomness, and randomness is an "ex nihilo" causal explanation and thus IMO is nonsensical by definition as it's a violation of the Principle of Sufficient Reason.

Yet plenty of physicalists and even immaterialists are happy to accept Laws of Nature even when they're probabilistic...which again is Just One Look territory to me except I'm screaming WHAT KEEPS THE LAWS FROM CHANGING?!.



So personal ability to conceive doesn't seem like a barrier to everyone else's positions on what is or is not possible/coherent.

Perhaps this question might move things into novel territory, tell me what you think:

A panpsychist might argue that quantum particles are actually conscious entities (albeit dimly conscious) moving not randomly but by exercising free will. From outside examination is there a way to prove them wrong?

What's different this time? Seems like it's just a variation on claiming all events must be deterministic or random thus free will can't exist.

I can't conceive of just-so determinism as that to me is just randomness, and randomness is an "ex nihilo" causal explanation and thus IMO is nonsensical by definition as it's a violation of the Principle of Sufficient Reason.

Yet plenty of physicalists and even immaterialists are happy to accept Laws of Nature even when they're probabilistic...which again is Just One Look territory to me except I'm screaming WHAT KEEPS THE LAWS FROM CHANGING?!.



So personal ability to conceive doesn't seem like a barrier to everyone else's positions on what is or is not possible/coherent.

Perhaps this question might move things into novel territory, tell me what you think:

A panpsychist might argue that quantum particles are actually conscious entities (albeit dimly conscious) moving not randomly but by exercising free will. From outside examination is there a way to prove them wrong?

He's asking how without determinism or randomness things might happen and saying sure I'm open to it being different just tell me how. I admit it's hard question, he's essentially saying how would something happen without a cause. But then a decision would HAVE to be caused by something because we consciously deliberate about stuff, so at the very least it would be influenced and then how does it not become determinism or randomness. I don't know. I'm sure some libertarian would have addressed it but I don't care and I don't subscribe to libertarianism anyway.

As for panpsychism, that is interesting, and might bring the conversation along, but I really doubt its gonna square this circle convo. I do wonder, even with particles, if they are just zipping about would it just not be random. It would look random to us. Maybe we're hitting a brick wall because we're coming at the topic strictly from a deterministic/randomistic base, like neuroscientists trying to figure out consciousness when materialism doesn't measure subjective qualitive aspects. I don't know.

It's almost as if one just has to decide on faith.

Not sure what you mean here - are you saying accepting/rejecting the exclusivity of the randomness/deterministic dichotomy is an act of faith?

He's asking how without determinism or randomness things might happen and saying sure I'm open to it being different just tell me how. I admit it's hard question, he's essentially saying how would something happen without a cause.

Yeah I don't get what you're saying here. Isn't randomness by definition something happening without an ultimate cause?

Like if I throw a ball so it arcs through the air, even though the trajectory is calculable the position of the electrons partially making up the ball are ultimately randomly distribut[ed] as per the "electron cloud" around the nucleus of their respective atoms. 

So by random we mean the final outcome can at best only be stochastically predicted by the prior state of reality...right?

But then a decision would HAVE to be caused by something because we consciously deliberate about stuff, so at the very least it would be influenced and then how does it not become determinism or randomness. I don't know. I'm sure some libertarian would have addressed it but I don't care and I don't subscribe to libertarianism anyway.

Why does it have to "become determinism or randomness"?

I think what I and maybe some of the other proponents don't get is what is compelling about this dichotomy. Heck I don't think there even is a real dichotomy, I think what you are calling "determinism" here is just randomness of a particular kind.

Look at it this way - for those stochastic events where the outcomes are measured by a random variable, it's technically possible for one outcome to occur over and over. If there was a truly random pair of fair dice, for example, it's exceedingly improbable but *possible* that rolling the pair produces snake eyes for a millennia.

Similarly if there's no explanation for what constrains observed "deterministic" cause-effect relations, they might all change outcomes once the trillion year "lucky streak" ends.

As for panpsychism, that is interesting, and might bring the conversation along, but I really doubt its gonna square this circle convo. I do wonder, even with particles, if they are just zipping about would it just not be random. It would look random to us.

So even if we had free will, an alien intelligence (or perhaps their explorer AIs) might see us [as] behaving randomly? Without some knowledge of the "inner life" of an entity free will and randomness are indistinguishable?

Maybe we're hitting a brick wall because we're coming at the topic strictly from a deterministic/randomistic base

Not me - I've yet to be convinced there is such a base. That's why I said my assertion here is simply that free will isn't incoherent. That's different than making an affirmative case.

I think you are looking at this like there's maybe some way out of the randomness/determinism prison whereas I feel the prison walls are illusory.

Not sure which of is the Joker, and which the Thief in this scenario though.

Also, I don't think Paul is trolling, but he very purposefully started this thread knowing there is NO answer considering he wasnt convinced last time. I also don't trust his integrity considering he doesn't respond to me calling out how stupid and pointless this entire discussion is, only you guys so it can KEEP going.

Smaw, I don't know how long you've been following these forums or how familiar you are with a long history, prior to the existence of Psience Quest. Some of these things go waaay back. Most of us are familiar with each other's viewpoints, so any discussion may be taking place for a number of reasons. It might be simple social engagement, like the British, when short of something to say, will talk about the weather, it's accepted, its a common ground, mutually understood as non-threatening, but a way of connecting. Other discussions on these forums take place to explore ideas, to see where they lead. Myself, I'm most interested in people's personal experiences, and what can be discovered about the wider world from them. It has always appeared to me that the world is much stranger and more surprising, more interesting than a mainstream view would have us think.

The thread is a complete waste of time if anyone thinks it's going to lead to anything fruitful, but that's not a criticism. I'm not saying don't do it, just that as Typoz very aptly pointed out, it's really just social engagement. Paul/Malf etc are not going to concede anything. 

In order to falsify materialism, all you have to do is demonstrate that thoughts can be created/occur without a brain. This has been done beyond reasonable doubt in many people's opinion, but (of course) not to an experimental standard that is going to convince mainstream science, yet.

Seems to me - and apparently Smaw - you just said the same claim a different way.

That you don't think there are more than random events & deterministic events is something you've said quite a few times.

But plenty of people don't even bother to mention this dichotomy so not sure why it would carry weight without an argument explicitly showing why that dichotomy is exclusive.

Why do you keep on about this being my claim? I've said a dozen times that I'm suspending the claim that there are only these two possibilities. The claim is suspended. The fact that I then say there are the only two I can imagine is a comment about my possible failure of imagination. Then I ask someone to give me a description of another possibility.

You spend a lot of time avoiding the question by insisting that I'm not really asking a question. Do I just have to have faith in it?

~~ Paul