Neuroscience and free will

Meanwhile, I'm not sure that it matters that the true nature of causality is still being debated. We can give coherent descriptions of cause and effect. For example, we can say that a change of force is a cause. And every tidbit of our technology relies on deterministic cause and effect. I don't think we can say the same thing about nondeterministic "acausal" causes.

~~ Paul

Cause is a term of abstraction and useful in logical processes.  I just shake my head at most of this topic because -IMHO- the ground floor of analysis has changed.  The isolated physical property, determined to be a property in isolation, is dead.  A "cause" is a metaphysical assessment.   No particle, event or system is an island.  Causes - in the modern day - need to be evaluated in Causal Models.

 

Causal models are mathematical models representing causal relationships within an individual system or population. They facilitate inferences about causal relationships from statistical data. They can teach us a good deal about the epistemology of causation, and about the relationship between causation and probability. They have also been applied to topics of interest to philosophers, such as the logic of counterfactuals, decision theory, and the analysis of actual causation.[2]
— Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Pearl defines a causal model as an ordered triple, where {U,V,E} is a set of exogenous variables whose values are determined by factors outside the model; V is a set of endogenous variables whose values are determined by factors within the model; and E is a set of structural equations that express the value of each endogenous variable as a function of the values of the other variables in U and V.[1]   

This framework will take a lot of the "magic" out of the arguments.

On a slightly different tack, one that's a bit more interesting to me. It might be more accurate to suggest that my sense of free will, may be my sense of pursuing a different trajectory from that of 'the group'.

I find this idea of balance between the individual, and the group really interesting. There are some fascinating studies on ant colonies selection of a new home, showing some really very clever balance at work, between the power of the individual scout ant to influence the colony, vs the power of the ant colony (group).

So my sense of freedom, might really be my sense of pursuing a different trajectory to 'the group', and that this occurs within the shared/created group reality. Rather than being a sense of freedom that I've naively grown-up with, which is based within the belief that I am an isolated individual, in a world that exists separately from me.

Well said.

What implications would there be for free will if the empirical evidence of parapsychology is valid and materialism is not true - there really is some form of "spiritual reality"? Since materialism would be false, determinism and randomness would no longer exclusively rule the world. There would also be room for a third alternative that we experience as free will, as an exclusive property of consciousness and probably intellectually impenetrable by it.

Why should it be intellectually impenetrable if our intellect is part of the spiritual reality? I'd hate to see us chalk up an entire new realm of realty as unknowable.

A consciousness that we know enough about already to realize how little we really know of its ultimate essence - that this is still a mystery with no sign of any change to that status. Come to think of it, we do at least have a pile of empirical evidence that human consciousness is nonlocal and not limited to and solely a function of the physical brain. So we already know that human consciousness and its "will" are in essence not physical. So we also know this conscious "will" is not tied to physical determinism and the workings of a hyper-complex mechanism. So we were there already.

Wait, why are you assuming that the spiritual realm is not deterministic/random?

I'm willing to allow for any sort of extra-physical reality you want to throw into the mix. That still gives us no inkling of how libertarian free will might work. Doesn't it bother people to (possibly) assume the existence of some decision-making method that they cannot begin to describe?

~~ Paul

The question could be seen to be misframed, but is it really worth my rejoining this debate and trying to explain why knowing that my explanations have never been satisfactory to you in the past, and that the debate is likely, as nbtruthman describes it, interminable?


Again, is it worth venturing answers which have almost no possibility of convincing or even slightly swaying you?

I thought people might want to improve their descriptions of this third form of decision-making so that even thick-headed folks like me might understand.

~~ Paul

Cause is a term of abstraction and useful in logical processes.  I just shake my head at most of this topic because -IMHO- the ground floor of analysis has changed.  The isolated physical property, determined to be a property in isolation, is dead.  A "cause" is a metaphysical assessment.   No particle, event or system is an island.  Causes - in the modern day - need to be evaluated in Causal Models.


This framework will take a lot of the "magic" out of the arguments.

Then please enlighten me. Can you use the framework to describe how I might make a free decision? Or to further convince me that there is no such thing?

~~ Paul

Why should it be intellectually impenetrable if our intellect is part of the spiritual reality? I'd hate to see us chalk up an entire new realm of realty as unknowable.

Wait, why are you assuming that the spiritual realm is not deterministic/random?

I'm willing to allow for any sort of extra-physical reality you want to throw into the mix. That still gives us no inkling of how libertarian free will might work. Doesn't it bother people to (possibly) assume the existence of some decision-making method that they cannot begin to describe?

~~ Paul

You seem not to disagree with my contention that determinism and materialism are but two sides of the same coin. One automatically goes with the other. And if materialism/determinism is true for all of reality, then there is no "spiritual realm".

But if the "spiritual realm" does exist (and there is a large body of evidence impinging on this), it is part and parcel with the notion that is part of the "perennial wisdom" that human souls exist, soul choices are real choices (not predetermined), and they matter in many ways. Through effort and the right choices souls progress higher towards perfection, or through wrong choices they devolve, souls reincarnate into chosen times and places, etc. etc.  All of this inherently requires true free will on the part of these beings/agents - conscious agents in the spiritual realm must not be bound by causal determinism. The spiritual realm itself as a higher dimensional soul environment may still be deterministic, but for the "perennial wisdom" to be true, its inhabitants absolutely must not be bound by this determinism. 

This view of existence inevitably also implies that also in physical life humans must have "libertarian" true free will to make choices, or the whole cosmic scheme makes no sense. Of course the materialist is of that opinion from the start, but there is still the large body of empirical evidence that he has to ignore or trivialize. 

So be it if this truly free will is incomprehensible to humans - it must still be true for there to be a "spiritual realm". This may simply be that at a fundamental level a being can't fully understand its own innermost nature because it fundamentally can't get outside of itself to observe itself, or because its innermost nature is fundamentally incomprehensible to a being of its level (for instance a 3-dimensional object to a 2-dimensional Flatlander). Or maybe both.

You seem not to disagree with my contention that determinism and materialism are but two sides of the same coin. One automatically goes with the other. And if materialism/determinism is true for all of reality, then there is no "spiritual realm".

No, I guess I don't agree with that. If you simply eject determinism from the picture, you're begging the question, aren't you? But, sure, let's eject it. That still doesn't help me imagine how I'm going to make a decision with whatever is left.

But if the "spiritual realm" does exist (and there is a large body of evidence impinging on this), it is part and parcel with the notion that is part of the "perennial wisdom" that human souls exist, soul choices are real choices (not predetermined), and they matter in many ways. Through effort and the right choices souls progress higher towards perfection, or through wrong choices they devolve, souls reincarnate into chosen times and places, etc. etc.  All of this inherently requires true free will on the part of these beings/agents - conscious agents in the spiritual realm must not be bound by causal determinism. The spiritual realm itself as a higher dimensional soul environment may still be deterministic, but for the "perennial wisdom" to be true, its inhabitants absolutely must not be bound by this determinism.

This view of existence inevitably also implies that also in physical life humans must have "libertarian" true free will to make choices, or the whole cosmic scheme makes no sense. Of course the materialist is of that opinion from the start, but there is still the large body of empirical evidence that he has to ignore or trivialize. 

So be it if this truly free will is incomprehensible to humans - it must still be true for there to be a "spiritual realm". This may simply be that at a fundamental level a being can't fully understand its own innermost nature because it fundamentally can't get outside of itself to observe itself, or because its innermost nature is fundamentally incomprehensible to a being of its level (for instance a 3-dimensional object to a 2-dimensional Flatlander). Or maybe both.

That sort of quasi-religious argument doesn't do the trick for me. I'm asking a much narrower question: If there are free choices, how do I make them? Let's say I've narrowed a choice down to three options deterministically. Now I need to pick one option. I'm not going to do it by flipping coins. What do I do?

~~ Paul

Then please enlighten me. Can you use the framework to describe how I might make a free decision? Or to further convince me that there is no such thing?

~~ Paul

Let's use the framework "where {U,V,E} is a set of exogenous variables whose values are determined by factors outside the model; V is a set of endogenous variables whose values are determined by factors within the model; and E is a set of structural equations that express the value of each endogenous variable as a function of the values of the other variables in U and V.

Let's describe the decision of a scientist to create an experiment.  There are a set of equations that will be patterned, just so, as to generate observed data - in a special manner.  The functional goal will be that a new structural relation can be tested.  The really hard work of science is just this design of experiment (DOE) work. 

Would you like to proceed with this example?  The abstract DOE is a pattern created as a variable in the endogenous environment.  I suggest it is freely and creatively selected.

Let's use the framework "A causal model is an ordered triple <U,V, E>, where U is a set of exogenous variables whose values are determined by factors outside the model; V is a set of endogenous variables whose values are determined by factors within the model; and E is a set of structural equations that express the value of each endogenous variable as a function of the values of the other variables in U and V.

Let's describe the decision of a scientist to create an experiment.  There are a set of equations that will be patterned, just so, as to generate observed data - in a special manner.  The functional goal will be that a new structural relation can be tested.  The really hard work of science is just this design of experiment (DOE) work. 

Would you like to proceed with this example?  The abstract DOE is a pattern created as a variable in the endogenous environment.  I suggest it is freely and creatively selected.

Sure, please proceed.

Oh, and I corrected the framework statement above.

~~ Paul