Neuroscience and free will

Right, I agree that we probably cannot find whys and hows for the axiomatic stuff at the bottom. But that holds true for physics, too, so I'm not sure why people keep asking for the fundamental causal reasons in physics.

No matter the metaphysical model, there are going to be unexaplainable axiomatic existents and forces and such.

~~ Paul

The difference is axioms that follow from logical observation of change, thus applying for all change, versus mere "just so" brute facts like "Laws of Nature" and "Random" that are the opposite of explanation.

No matter what the metaphysical model, no matter whether we are in our universe or awaken into some alien landscape with different regularities, there has to be a reason why change happens and one outcome is the result. As per Gregg Rosenberg, "Why some thing rather than Everything?"

The only Possibility Selector anyone seems to be familiar with is the mind, why "decide" and "intends" come up in discussion even of (presumably) non-mental causation. Now this doesn't mean there *has* to be mental causation involved in every cause-effect relationship, but it does show a space for it. Naturally people can discuss NDEs, Psi, Theist Apologetics, magic(k)/occult, etc to make an affirmative argument that satisfies them but that is what I presume the rest of Psience Quest is for.

See also the Something from Nothing miracles to get Subjectivity & Intentionality that Physicalism requires. How many "just so" miracles can one paradigm have...

Mental causation doesn't need to mean there is a need to decide an event in every moment, just that at some point a being was involved - for example Aquinas' 5th way has God set the Final Causes of material things at the moment of creation.

So what drives the microelectronic events in a chip after some initial agency? It's gotta be Luck, right?

But even there exactly where the causal power lies can vary - a computer circuit doesn't need to have  consciousness/agency, it could just be constituted of atomic particles that possess agency. Of course the question comes up why free particles decide to hold into such configurations, but again since Physicalism has Luck as the ultimate reason anything happens one can't be too hard on the Panpsychists...

I have no idea what you mean by Luck.

~~ Paul

The difference is axioms that follow from logical observation of change, thus applying for all change, versus mere "just so" brute facts like "Laws of Nature" and "Random" that are the opposite of explanation.

I don't understand why the laws of change are any better than the laws of Nature. Are you sure you're not just tossing dozens of categories of events under "change" and then somehow feeling like you can explain the change?

No matter what the metaphysical model, no matter whether we are in our universe or awaken into some alien landscape with different regularities, there has to be a reason why change happens and one outcome is the result. As per Gregg Rosenberg, "Why some thing rather than Everything?"

I agree there has to be a reason. However, my asking for the reason has been ridiculed as stupid and hard-headed. Why did the chicken outcome prevail over the fish outcome?

The only Possibility Selector anyone seems to be familiar with is the mind, why "decide" and "intends" come up in discussion even of (presumably) non-mental causation. Now this doesn't mean there *has* to be mental causation involved in every cause-effect relationship, but it does show a space for it. Naturally people can discuss NDEs, Psi, Theist Apologetics, magic(k)/occult, etc to make an affirmative argument that satisfies them but that is what I presume the rest of Psience Quest is for.

It makes space for such crazy notions as every alpha decay event being freely chosen by some agent, yet always in a way that appears random.

See also the Something from Nothing miracles to get Subjectivity & Intentionality that Physicalism requires. How many "just so" miracles can one paradigm have...

I don't understand what our discussion of free will has to do with consciousness or subjectivity. It seems like finding a space for free will makes people believe they have found a space for consciousness. I don't see how. Because surely no one will assert the opposite: that finding space for consciousness automatically finds space for free will.

~~ Paul

So what drives the microelectronic events in a chip after some initial agency? It's gotta be Luck, right?

Why would it be luck if God set the ends to which efficient causes will direct themselves? Not to say Aquinas was correct, just that it certainly doesn't seem to involve luck at all.

Though this may come back to Anthony Flew's There is a God, as he abandoned his faith in atheism b/c he felt there was a rational argument for a God who sustains creation across time.

I have no idea what you mean by Luck.

I thought it was you who brought in the idea of Luck earlier in the thread -> Isn't that what keeps the Laws in place? That keeps the indeterminism of the quantum level from disintegrating the macro-world?

That seems like an appeal to magic, as noted above.

Why would it be luck if God set the ends to which efficient causes will direct themselves? Not to say Aquinas was correct, just that it certainly doesn't seem to involve luck at all.

So God can set an incredibly long sequence of microevents to happen automatically? Then why should we assume God didn't simply do that at the beginning of the universe and then go off to work on Universe 2.0, leaving us with pure determinism?

I thought it was you who brought in the idea of Luck earlier in the thread -> Isn't that what keeps the Laws in place? That keeps the indeterminism of the quantum level from disintegrating the macro-world?

That seems like an appeal to magic, as noted above.

I don't think it was me. I wouldn't call it Luck. I would say that there axiomatic existants and events in the world that operate in certain ways, modulo randomness. Rather like God operating in certain ways, yet somehow, to some people, less satisfying.

~~ Paul

I don't understand why the laws of change are any better than the laws of Nature. Are you sure you're not just tossing dozens of categories of events under "change" and then somehow feeling like you can explain the change?

Yes I'm sure. I don't really see it as "laws of change" as unless you mean logical laws. So then laws of change are logical laws, which have to hold everywhere this is change even in worlds where people can cast spells or have X-genes to shoot lasers from their eyes.

The supposed laws of physics are just regularities people assigned a probability of 100% confidence to. They could change, just no one expects them to change so suddenly we can't utilize the patterns for technology.

I agree there has to be a reason. However, my asking for the reason has been ridiculed as stupid and hard-headed. Why did the chicken outcome prevail over the fish outcome?

Pretty sure I answered this already, pointing out [other people's] essays along with prior posts? You keep suggesting something is missing from any explanation you've been given, so perhaps you could articulate the issue beyond asking the same questions otherwise I fear we will just go in circles.

As I've said, if one assumes all metaphysics has to, in some, way, be expressible in the language of Physicalism [then] like that paradigm there's no free will and everything about human life is completely worthless since there's no way to get to human achievement & moral responsiiblity.

It makes space for such crazy notions as every alpha decay event being freely chosen by some agent, yet always in a way that appears random.

Crazy seems like a very interest relative term? To me that's far less crazy that the Something from Nothing, Just-So miracles materialism requires we take on faith.

And if by "random" you mean modeled with a probability distribution, that's actually neither deterministic nor random and exactly what a free agent would probably look like from the outside.

I don't understand what our discussion of free will has to do with consciousness or subjectivity. It seems like finding a space for free will makes people believe they have found a space for consciousness. I don't see how. Because surely no one will assert the opposite: that finding space for consciousness automatically finds space for free will.

Actually if you have Rationality / Subjectivity / Intentionality and a sense of the Now you have, at minimum, the ingredients for free will.  The neuroscientist Tallis has a whole book that leads up to this - Of Time & Lamentation.

Might be the answer you are looking for?

So God can set an incredibly long sequence of microevents to happen automatically? Then why should we assume God didn't simply do that at the beginning of the universe and then go off to work on Universe 2.0, leaving us with pure determinism?

As noted above, God may be necessary to sustain reality across time - that's the argument that made Anthony Flew leave his atheist faith and become a theist.

As to the whether everything is Fated...that to me is like asking if everything we experience is just a dream though theologians make arguments for God's goodness that might be relevant to the question.

I don't think it was me. I wouldn't call it Luck. I would say that there axiomatic existants and events in the world that operate in certain ways, modulo randomness. Rather like God operating in certain ways, yet somehow, to some people, less satisfying.

Found it ->

We are lucky that the inherent randomness at the quantum level averages out to a significant amount of determinism at the macro level.

We could say "brute fact" instead of luck but that seems like the same thing.

Which is also the difference between God and brute fact axioms of physics as noted in prior posts here & here.

Yes I'm sure. I don't really see it as "laws of change" as unless you mean logical laws. So then laws of change are logical laws, which have to hold everywhere this is change even in worlds where people can cast spells or have X-genes to shoot lasers from their eyes.

The supposed laws of physics are just regularities people assigned a probability of 100% confidence to. They could change, just no one expects them to change so suddenly we can't utilize the patterns for technology.

I don't understand how you are going to model change with only logic, especially if the model is supposed to hold in all possible worlds. I think you will end up with either a set of just-so claims or a set of "rules" so general that they are not useful.

Pretty sure I answered this already, pointing out [other people's] essays along with prior posts? You keep suggesting something is missing from any explanation you've been given, so perhaps you could articulate the issue beyond asking the same questions otherwise I fear we will just go in circles.

I'm sorry, but it's obvious that what you see as an answer does not strike me as one. It would be so helpful if you could point to one paragraph that answers the question of why/how we choose a particular decision from the possibility space. Then I can say aha! or explain that the answer does not mean the same thing to me.

As I've said, if one assumes all metaphysics has to, in some, way, be expressible in the language of Physicalism that like that paradigm there's no free will and everything about human life is completely worthless since there's no way to get to human achievement & moral responsiiblity.

I don't agree with your conclusion about a life without free will. Also, I'm not sure at all why the presence of free will somehow gives my life worth. But I'm not sure we want to go down this path.

Crazy seems like a very interest relative term? To me that's far less crazy that the Something from Nothing, Just-So miracles materialism requires we take on faith.

And if by "random" you mean modeled with a probability distribution, that's actually neither deterministic nor random and exactly what a free agent would probably look like from the outside.

To me, it's a crazy notion. What would possibly be the point? The probability distribution for which particle undergoes an alpha decay is uniform. Why does God bother with this?

Actually if you have Rationality / Subjectivity / Intentionality and a sense of the Now you have, at minimum, the ingredients for free will.  The neuroscientist Tallis has a whole book that leads up to this - Of Time & Lamentation.

Might be the answer you are looking for?

I'll check out his book. It does sound fascinating.

~~ Paul

So God can set an incredibly long sequence of microevents to happen automatically? Then why should we assume God didn't simply do that at the beginning of the universe and then go off to work on Universe 2.0, leaving us with pure determinism?

I don't think it was me. I wouldn't call it Luck. I would say that there axiomatic existants and events in the world that operate in certain ways, modulo randomness. Rather like God operating in certain ways, yet somehow, to some people, less satisfying.

~~ Paul

Again, I'm losing track of where this discussion is going. I find nothing suggested in this post satisfying.

God: as a creator/director/ultimate determinant ... this seems too close to the old testament version of God the creator, existing above and apart from His creation. This divine micro-management is not my idea of individual freedom of choice.

Luck: reminds me of all the times sceptics use luck (chance) to explain anomalies. A god-of-the-gaps but with luck replacing god.

Randomness: like luck, a chance coming together resulting in something apparently non-random (designed or intended).

Any or all of these things might play a role (there might be local gods, or gods with jobs, for all we know) or maybe none of them do. What matters to me is that I have the freedom to choose between chicken or fish, that I do so by using my conscious will which is informed but not pre-determined. I have yet to see a cogent argument why this should not be the case.

We could say "brute fact" instead of luck but that seems like the same thing.

Which is also the difference between God and brute fact axioms of physics as noted in prior posts here & here.

It doesn't seem like the same thing at all. When you finally have a model of the indeterministic world we have been talking about, you will have brute facts. It sounds like God is a big one.

I don't see how those two posts explain the difference between God and a brute fact. Perhaps it will become clear if you post the paragraph that explains why/how I choose one outcome over the others.

~~ Paul