Neuroscience and free will

A deterministic process with apparently random initial conditions that can be hijacked by an entity possessing intention and ability to direct the mechanism fits our intuitive understanding of free will and creativity.

This doesn't answer the questions of "what is an entity?" and "how does an entity interface with the normally random factors to control them in a meaningful way?", but simply removes it one step further beyond our domain. The best answer for these questions to avoid an infinite regress might be to invoke the Loop of Oneness of existence which is another way of saying: this is the beginning and the end of all knowledge and reality.

It doesn't quite fit my understanding. For instance, were the works of Shakespeare all fueled entirely by random perturbations in ideas, word selections, etc. etc. that were merely creatively selected by the entity Shakespeare? Given the way beyond microscopic improbability of random selections of ideas and words actually meaning anything at all, much less something not only meaningful but also beautiful, powerful and directly a part of a particular unfolding story. When put this way it doesn't seem plausible at all, at least to me. 

This is the same problem that in neo-Darwinism random mutations to a gene have in creating new 3-dimensional folds to a protein that give it a new function. The beyond vast majority of random mutations are deleterious, and multiple simultaneous random mutations are even more so. The functional and non-deleterious amino acid sequence mutations are a vanishingly tiny percentage of the total sequence space - a random search just doesn't do.

Does creativity and innovation go beyond programming, experience and unconscious selection from random events? I think so. Great composers like Mozart often experienced new musical compositions appearing from nothing in their consciousness. Fuelled by random selections of notes? Come on. 

"In his book Psychology of Invention, mathematician Jaques Hadamard described his own creative mathematical thinking as wordless and sparked by mental images that reveal the entire solution to a problem. Penrose agrees. He says mathematical solutions can wordlessly appear in his mind. It may take days to work out the details even though the solution is clearly understood."  (From this article)

Selection of random events again, this time solutions to mathematical problems? 

I think that the unknowable innermost nature of the conscious "entity" that you refer to must encompass the ability to create complex organized information in response to intent and desire. Of course the entity must also be properly prepared by having absorbed the necessary background information.

This is the same problem that in neo-Darwinism random mutations to a gene have in creating new 3-dimensional folds to a protein that give it a new function. The beyond vast majority of random mutations are deleterious, and multiple simultaneous random mutations are even more so. The functional and non-deleterious amino acid sequence mutations are a vanishingly tiny percentage of the total sequence space - a random search just doesn't do.
Selection of random events again, this time solutions to mathematical problems? 

The current understanding is that most mutations are neutral. 

https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpag...ecular-839

Also, you cannot assume that mutations take long walks in sequence space.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequence_s...ence_space

~~ Paul

It means, that all else being equal, A is followed by B. A in your example would be "throw a brick at a window with sufficient force to break the glass" and B is "broken window". It doesn't mean that there aren't other ways to break the window. Nor does it mean that under a different set of conditions the glass may not break.

Deterministic means that under the identical conditions, the outcome is identical. It doesn't mean that the outcome is necessarily predictable (e.g. Chaos). It also can apply to anything - not just "matter" or "energy", but also "thoughts". It isn't a statement about mechanism or fundamentals, but about direction. 

Random refers to an inability to assign agency - whether that inability refers to physical characteristics, or to thoughts. Under the identical conditions, the outcomes vary in a way which is unchosen.

"Free" presumably implies that, like "random" and unlike "deterministic", the outcomes vary. But like "deterministic" and unlike "random", there is agency. I'm struggling with what that would look like (it seems paradoxical). "Under identical agency, the outcomes vary with respect to that agency."

Linda

For the case of broken window, it seems we all would  agree there is more to causation than the ordering of the events - you mention force but it isn't clear to me what a force is let alone what would make such a force sufficient? It seems to me we observe change, and then based on these observations we abstract concepts like force (along with energy and Natural Laws) but that seems to lead to a circularity unless we can know about forces without recourse to our observations?

But even if we assume there is some independent reality to forces, why does the brick never turn to butterflies when it hits the window (or some other unexpected event)? It seems there is something in the brick, and in the window, that gives us the predictable result of a broken window.

I can see determinism and randomness as external descriptors of our knowledge of what is happening, but that seems to be a different kind of explanatory modeling than what we'd need to explain the "why" of causes. Namely, why do certain effects (and not others) follow from certain causes (and no[t] others)?

Finally, I'm not sure what it means for randomness to lack agency, as if I understand you correctly this conception of agency includes non-mental processes?

As I have explained, my position on free will is closely related to New Mysterianism in the philosophy of mind. I don't think the essential nature of this is knowable by humans. The ability to decide to make a choice, make it, and then either to act on that choice or not according to inclination are amongst the defining attributes of a conscious sentient agent, whose inner nature is unknowable according to this philosophical position. Certainly the failure of all attempts to date to explain consciousness, and the lack of any sign of a breakthrough in the foreseeable future bode well for this philosophical position. If this philosophical position is correct then all attempts to understand exactly the process of deciding and willing will fail for fundamental reasons - they are very basically futile.

Do you think the process of what happens when the brick hits the window has been thoroughly understood? I ask because you seem to be demarcating a separation of mental causation from a presumably understood non-mental causation?

I think one can have an explanatory account of free will, but before this one must seek out the explanation for processes like (Brick --> Window --> Broken Window) that are presumed (initially at least) to be lacking in mental causation.

It doesn't quite fit my understanding. For instance, were the works of Shakespeare all fueled entirely by random perturbations in ideas, word selections, etc. etc. that were merely creatively selected by the entity Shakespeare? Given the way beyond microscopic improbability of random selections of ideas and words actually meaning anything at all, much less something not only meaningful but also beautiful, powerful and directly a part of a particular unfolding story. When put this way it doesn't seem plausible at all, at least to me.

I wasn't saying creative works are the result of randomness. I was saying that randomness can provide a seed of novelty which a mechanism (with a heap of feedback loops) can transform into something both new and interestingly structured. And furthermore that the edges of the mechanism where determinism bleeds into quantum randomness (e.g. microtubules) could be the interface by which an entity exerts a prime cause to influence the mechanism according to the intention of the entity.

For the case of broken window, it seems we all would  agree there is more to causation than the ordering of the events - you mention force but it isn't clear to me what a force is let alone what would make such a force sufficient? It seems to me we observe change, and then based on these observations we abstract concepts like force (along with energy and Natural Laws) but that seems to lead to a circularity unless we can know about forces without recourse to our observations?

Yes, when we say, "if A then B", we recognize that there is more to it than the ordering of events (i.e. we are not talking about mere observation). I mentioned "force", but it wasn't necessary (it was said so that there wouldn't be any irrelevant quibbling as to why the brick might not break the window). It's a placeholder for "there's something about A that leads to B".

But even if we assume there is some independent reality to forces, why does the brick never turn to butterflies when it hits the window (or some other unexpected event)? It seems there is something in the brick, and in the window, that gives us the predictable result of a broken window.

I can see determinism and randomness as external descriptors of our knowledge of what is happening, but that seems to be a different kind of explanatory modeling than what we'd need to explain the "why" of causes. Namely, why do certain effects (and not others) follow from certain causes (and no[t] others)?

I agree that "cause" is different from "determinism" (although there is a loose relationship), and isn't necessary to the discussion.

Finally, I'm not sure what it means for randomness to lack agency, as if I understand you correctly this conception of agency includes non-mental processes?

Yes - e.g. "an instrument by which something is done."
http://definition.org/define/agent/

Linda

Yes, when we say, "if A then B", we recognize that there is more to it than the ordering of events (i.e. we are not talking about mere observation). I mentioned "force", but it wasn't necessary (it was said so that there wouldn't be any irrelevant quibbling as to why the brick might not break the window). It's a placeholder for "there's something about A that leads to B".


I agree that "cause" is different from "determinism" (although there is a loose relationship), and isn't necessary to the discussion.


Yes - e.g. "an instrument by which something is done."
http://definition.org/define/agent/

Linda

Perhaps I'm misreading your post but I would think the way in which "cause" is different from "determinism" as being the central to the discussion?

To me Determinism is just an assignment of 100% probability, an indication of our knowledge about what we think happens now and into the future.

Cause would be about the actual "something" about cause A and its relationship to effect B.

Agency is a proposed source of free will, not an explanation of how it works. Do you have an explanation that you can state in a paragraph?

~~ Paul

I believe I've caught up with this thread...

I think the best way of getting an answer is giving us an example of a process for which you have an explanation for, completely divorced from any question of mental agency.

But that seems to have been the impasse from before?

It seems to me easy enough to say the Prime Mover which decides all causation can give agents the ability to make choices, or that consciousness it the carrier of causation, but it seems you do not think this gets to the "how" of agency?

OTOH, I don't see why one should believe everything must be determined or random, in fact it seems to me those terms are nothing more than descriptors of our knowledge of future expectations rather than descriptors of what is real.

I'm not sure what would resolve this impasse without digging deeper into an example that has nothing to do with free will, for example what happens when a brick hits a window.

I believe I've caught up with this thread...

I think the best way of getting an answer is giving us an example of a process for which you have an explanation for, completely divorced from any question of mental agency.

But that seems to have been the impasse from before?

It seems to me easy enough to say the Prime Mover which decides all causation can give agents the ability to make choices, or that consciousness it the carrier of causation, but it seems you do not think this gets to the "how" of agency?

OTOH, I don't see why one should believe everything must be determined or random, in fact it seems to me those terms are nothing more than descriptors of our knowledge of future expectations rather than descriptors of what is real.

I'm not sure what would resolve this impasse without digging deeper into an example that has nothing to do with free will, for example what happens when a brick hits a window.

I think the circuits in a CPU are pretty good examples of cause and effect explanations of deterministic processes, down to the quantum mechanical aspects of the circuits. We even have a good understanding of random effects on the circuits and how to compensate for them.

I don't know what the Prime Mover is, but saying that it can give other agents the ability to make free choices is, again, just a claim about the source of the ability to make choices.

Since I think that random means not determined, there is no logical room for some third way of making decisions. However, as I've said in previous conversations, I'm perfectly willing to suspend that definition. Perhaps there is room in what we think is random for some third way. But I will ask for an explanation of how such a decision is made. For example:

First, the agent narrows the choices to three using a completely deterministic method based on past events, knowledge, and the current state of affairs.

Second, the agent discards one of the choices at random.

Then, the agent selects one of the two remaining choices by . . .


~~ Paul

I think the circuits in a CPU are pretty good examples of cause and effect explanations of deterministic processes, down to the quantum mechanical aspects of the circuits. We even have a good understanding of random effects on the circuits and how to compensate for them.

Ok - how does it work? Best to figure this out before worrying about Prime Movers or anything else.