Neuroscience and free will

My possible paths (1), (2) and (3) can't be claimed to be actually known to be deterministic, because the intuitive feelings and the decisions to follow one of these paths are themselves mysterious properties of a subjective agent. Once the path was (mysteriously) chosen, then the outcome appeared to be a deterministic chain but was still subject to mysterious intervention by the conscious agent, who could still change his mind.

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that they have to be deterministic. I was just pointing out that they could be. But that leaves me in my usual state of not understanding how the agent makes an indeterministic yet specific decision.

~~ Paul

Isn't this simply the laziest of retorts?  Consciousness doesn't exist.  Love doesn't exist.  Beauty doesn't exist.  Color doesn't exist.

I think malf means that color is a construct of the brain, not an attribute of external objects. And our knowledge of the brain's color systems show that it's a bunch of subsystems that somehow manage to produce the experience of coherent colors.

~~ Paul

I'd like to return, for a moment, to that quote from John Horgan that I posted earlier in this thread. Here it is again:

So the point I would like clarified is this: what exactly do determinists believe when it comes to causality? That causes are all to do with physical interactions? No, really, I am very confused about this and it would help me understand where determinists are coming from. Horgan seems to be saying that Harris is stuck on a physicalist model while ignoring the subjective. Horgan's position seems to be that choices are made, not because of some objective physical neuronal activity but because of the subjective assessment (meaning) of the information at hand. Are determinists, as malf seems to be saying in his latest post, claiming that the subjective doesn't exist as Horgan maintains they are?

I don't know what philosophers mean. I mean that some set of prior events necessarily produces a downstream event, at least with a definable probability. But even that is probably incorrect. So I will simply refer to engineer's ability to produce desired events by building machines that effect the upstream events. 

The reason I'm not too worried about the definition of causality is that I'm willing to suspend the assumption that every decision is deterministic and/or random. Then I simply ask for a hand-waving description of the indeterministic yet specific decision-making method. If the excuse for not producing this description is that causality is poorly defined, then I agree that this conversation is hopeless.

"We have free will because we are creatures of mind, meaning, ideas, not just matter."

The words following "because" are not an explanation for the words preceding it.

~~ Paul

no, I think color really is a bit different, Edwin Land was able to show something startling about colour that is *very* startling. Reproducing some of the experiments is easily within the reach of most people. This is definitely worthwhile watching...

https://vimeo.com/11932120

I had to watch it several times to try and grasp it all, to understand just how radical Lands discoveries really were...

Fascinating video, Max, but I'm still at a loss to grasp what it has to do with free will. Again I'll ask: is it the contention of determinists that subjective meaning does not exist and therefore choice is an illusion, therefore everything is determined? If so, I completely get why Horgan is so exasperated.

By the way, the "mechanism" of brain processing of colour information is interesting but, IMHO, says nothing about subjectivity or qualia.

Fascinating video, Max, but I'm still at a loss to grasp what it has to do with free will. Again I'll ask: is it the contention of determinists that subjective meaning does not exist and therefore choice is an illusion, therefore everything is determined? If so, I completely get why Horgan is so exasperated.

By the way, the "mechanism" of brain processing of colour information is interesting but, IMHO, says nothing about subjectivity or qualia.

I don't understand why you connect those things. Yes, subjective meaning exists. But free choice might still be an illusion.

~~ Paul

For me... it's the interference of these whole brain patterns in some - as yet - undiscovered non-classical way, which leads somehow to our shared experience. For me, the brain is pretty dumb, it's a way of bringing together lots of sensory data into a place, where that data can interfere with itself, and feedback onto itself. 

Pretty dumb in the same sense that a computer is pretty dumb, being little more than a complex binary calculating device. But software can apply those calculations to algorithms and to other hardware to create a virtual reality on our screens, with which we can interact. But that software and that interaction requires a conscious agent to provide meaning. Without meaning the computer is a pile of hardware shunting around data. The human mind provides meaning. With meaning comes discernment and choice: free will.

I'd be interested if you could elaborate on this, however: "where that data can interfere with itself, and feedback onto itself." Are you suggesting that this equals consciousness? Or is that the "numpty explanation"?

Pretty dumb in the same sense that a computer is pretty dumb, being little more than a complex binary calculating device. But software can apply those calculations to algorithms and to other hardware to create a virtual reality on our screens, with which we can interact. But that software and that interaction requires a conscious agent to provide meaning. Without meaning the computer is a pile of hardware shunting around data. The human mind provides meaning. With meaning comes discernment and choice: free will.

Why does meaning imply free will?

What is different about meaning created by people and meaning created by computers? In both cases, the meaning of a token X is specified by its association with other tokens. 

~~ Paul

Why does meaning imply free will?

What is different about meaning created by people and meaning created by computers? In both cases, the meaning of a token X is specified by its association with other tokens. 

~~ Paul

Because meaning is subjective. Why not use real examples instead of meaningless tokens?

My example: what does it mean to me to be with my granddaughter? There's something more than proximity. There's something more than facial recognition. There's something more than common genes. Something that can't be explained by mechanism.

Free will? Do I feel like spending the day with my family or spending it watching my favourite team play sport? My choice may be emotional or sentimental. It may involve feelings of love or loyalty or guilt. How does that compute? What's the algorithm for sentiment? How does a NAND gate get a computer to feel empathy?

Sorry, I’ve been out all day. Max has me about right. Colour is a great example, but it may be that we are being ‘fooled’ all the time or, to put it another way, constantly constructing our interactions into a coherent narrative. Saying something ‘feels’ a certain way isn’t enough. 

Perversely, it appears to be the strongest (only?) argument too (although we’re finding many ways to  verbalise it). I suspect Paul will never find the explanation he desires.

Little anecdote:

I was having a chat to a work colleague yesterday, as she was upset following a poor review from a client. My co-worker is a young new grad from an ethnic minority and there was some thinly veiled bigotry in the criticism. I suggested that she should take on board anything constructive (there was none) and set her upset aside. Unfortunately, this was the reaction of a man who had had his own specific history, the sum of all his previous experiences, plus any added stresses and pressures on the day he interacted with my colleague. Certainly doesn’t make him right, but he couldn’t have acted in any other way. This was outside of her control, and unworthy of her distress. We talked further on Stoic philosophy and I lent her a book.

She probably thinks I’m a dick. :D