Neuroscience and free will

So for me, random is best defined as “without understanding”, it’s not without some reasoning...

I can see this as a working definition, at least to an extent. After all if an event happened once, like a tiny silver ball appeared before us between our face and whatever screen we're looking at to read this forum, but vanished upon our touch...

We would think of it as random as per our expectations of the usual day passing, but it would have no probability distribution as it's a unique event. Which is interestingly in itself, the idea that unique events are neither determined nor random [in a mathematical sense]...

What about "random" as "without a classical relationship to the agent (as far as we can tell)". "Agent" is anything (physical or mental) which produces/influences an event.

That foregoes some of the problematic stipulations. For example, it doesn't matter whether or not we understand the random input, or whether or not that input has some regularity. It breaks the random/deterministic dichotomy. And it carves out a space in which to look for "free" events.

Under identical conditions, the playing out of events are either identical (deterministic) or different. Events which differ either are without a classical relationship to an agent (random) or have a non-classical relationship. And it's that last category which we could look in for "free". The bulk of the examples/discussion about free will have fallen in to the "deterministic" category - the conditions determine the events/outcomes, so that rather than identical conditions, a change in outcome requires a change in conditions.

I thought of a non-consciousness example which would fall in to this third "free" category - the Freedom-of-Choice loophole in entanglement experiments (the choice of which measurement to take is influenced by some deeply hidden classical agent). The bulk of the entanglement experiments use random number generators to make the choice of which measurement to take. A deeply hidden classical correlation in the output of the random number generators could account for the observed correlations which are taken to be evidence of entanglement. To get around this, a team of physicists used the light from two distant Quasars (7.8 billion and 12.2 billion light years away) to direct the random choice. Since the light was not only at least 7.8 billion years old, but also differed by 4.4 billion years, even a deeply hidden layer of classical physics would be unable to have correlated the output. 

Had this experiment failed to produce the correlations seen in other entanglement experiments, then it would have been a demonstration that prior entanglement experiments are examples of a "free" choice - non-deterministic and non-random.

That still wouldn't have answered Paul's question as to how the "free" choice is realized, though. But at least it would have been an example of a "free" choice (something we are sorely missing).

Linda

Since neither determinism nor randomness exist in themselves save as mental abstraction, they only become hard to imagine when mistakenly taken for real aspects of nature.

So the almost perfect determinism of a computer is just a mental abstraction?

What is it about free will that you see as having an unsatisfying description? (I'd say determinism is as unsatisfying as random, really just randomness of a special kind, unless there's a God holding the causal chain as something perfectly predictable...)

For me, free will has no description whatsoever, let alone an unsatisfying one. I simply cannot imagine how I might make a libertarian free decision. And so we have this conversation.

~~ Paul

Nope, that’s wrong. You can’t say they are correlated until you have measured them, how could you? They have no values *until* you have measured them, so you can’t say they are correlated. Once you measure them they are no longer entangled. Before measurement their information is undetermined. To suggest the carefully prepared particle pairs have any values whilst they are entangled (before we measure them) is a complete misunderstanding of quantum mechanics. You’re still thinking classically.

Again, I did not say that entangled particles have values. In fact, I said "... just not specific values." But entangled particles are correlated. That's what entanglement is. That's why I know the value of particle B after I measure particle A.

From Wiki:

"Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon that occurs when pairs or groups of particles are generated, interact, or share spatial proximity in ways such that the quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently of the state of the other(s), even when the particles are separated by a large distance."

~~ Paul

I can see this as a working definition, at least to an extent. After all if an event happened once, like a tiny silver ball appeared before us between our face and whatever screen we're looking at to read this forum, but vanished upon our touch...

We would think of it as random as per our expectations of the usual day passing, but it would have no probability distribution as it's a unique event. Which is interestingly in itself, the idea that unique events are neither determined nor random [in a mathematical sense]...

We might use the term random in the sense that the ball was random with respect to our expectations. We would have no idea whether the event was actually a random one. I think this is an informal use of the term random.

~~ Paul

We might use the term random in the sense that the ball was random with respect to our expectations. We would have no idea whether the event was actually a random one. I think this is an informal use of the term random.

~~ Paul

I think we're in agreement on this then? -> No unique event can be held to be random or determined, those designations concern repeated observations of events held to be in "identical" conditions where by "identical" we mean the relevant priors.

I think we're in agreement on this then? -> No unique event can be held to be random or determined, those designations concern repeated observations of events held to be in "identical" conditions where by "identical" we mean the relevant priors.

Yes, I agree that single events need to be studied, if possible, to understand whether they were determined or random.

Note, however, that this will not lead to my agreeing that single events might be in some third category, indeterministic yet nonrandom. That still requires a coherent description of how such a category can exist. Instead, if we can't figure out the category of a single event, I'd leave it as an unsolved puzzle.

~~ Paul

Why does free will have to have a description at all Paul?

You seem comfortable  with the concept of random which is arguably at least as ambiguous.  I haven't seen a description in this thread for random that is at all cogent beyond Max's rather elegant "not understood".  So, for free will just use "not understood", have faith in your first person experience NOT being based on third party determinism (because it sure doesn't feel that way), and move on.

That still requires a coherent description of how such a category can exist.

You consider the notion of random as coherent?  If so, please explain.