Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Dec 12, 2017 - 05:05pm PT
|
Hey, thanks for that response, yanqui! Let me just say that (unlike Ed) I'm a punter, but the free will issue has been on my radar for a number of years now. I've had time to sit with and digest ideas that were certainly foreign to me before I started reading the likes of Daniel Dennett and Steven Pinker and Sam Harris and others about free will. Anyhow, I would say that with respect to the statement below that you cited, you should focus on the word "seemingly".
People are not thought to be exactly finite automata because they can seemingly create new choices. Just because you feel like you made the choice does not mean that you did in any kind of supra-deterministic manner. It does not mean that your decision was not entirely deterministic. The randomness part of free will is a red herring, in my opinion. It is not needed to argue against the "ghost in the machine" -- some independent center of decision-making that is independent of causality. When you have billions of neurons all interconnected and reacting to the world, you will be essentially unpredictable, and, as Moose said way up-thread, you would have all the appearance of being an independent agent.
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
|
Dec 12, 2017 - 06:44pm PT
|
Just because you feel like you made the choice does not mean ... that your decision was not entirely deterministic
Absolutely (assuming, of course, the decision was not based on a randomized algorithm). To me, the red herring is to try to relate every single discussion about what "free choice" could mean to an argument about whether Descartes was right or wrong. After all, Descartes lived a long time ago and I think nowadays we have a better feel for our own natural history after 400 additional years of learning about the world. I don't see why it can't be possible that Descartes was wrong but "free choice" and "control" can still can mean something interesting.
Let's get away from my speculations about whether or not some aspects of the mind might work like nondeterministic algorithms and pass to a more conventional use of the term "free choice". A use that is very consistent with the idea of determinism.
In particular, let's consider "free choice" in terms of a woman's right to choose. Where is the "freedom" here? It seems to me it's a freedom from control by the state, or control by other people. It's a freedom "from". Of course it doesn't mean anything about whether a woman's decision to abort or not is "non deterministic". I think most would agree the final decision might be determined by any number factors like values, religion, background, economic circumstances, education, desires, emotions, awareness of the consequences, etc., etc. But the "freedom" of the choice is a freedom of not having to decide between aborting and spending years in jail. Of not having someone else take control of the decision by imposing limits like this. I don't see how the freedom of choice in this circumstance is illusory, even if many would agree the final choice still falls very much in the realm of determinism.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Dec 12, 2017 - 06:54pm PT
|
billions of neurons all interconnected and reacting to the world
Neurons can't do sh!t by themselves without the lifeforce of the living entity itself first.
You people are still clueless about life itself ......
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Dec 12, 2017 - 07:30pm PT
|
I can't resist, one more...
For several varieties of mechanistic will (aka mechanistic volition), both free and unfree (i.e., constrained) and showing degrees therein, and altogether reflected in just ONE episodic moment, I'd recommend the following clip.
[Click to View YouTube Video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDJJBMXiwiI
Classic!
Now if you want to go even deeper on these varieties, spend a few minutes to consider how a constraint on Kate's will (input from Alejandro's gun) can paradoxically "flip the script" and actually FREE her will (from ??). It's another example dramatically illustrating how we can get so powerfully confused between constraints of the will and freedoms of the will - not only within our own selves but in conversations w others.
If you haven't seen the movie, two thumbs WAY up.
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
|
Dec 12, 2017 - 07:53pm PT
|
Hey jgill: MIT has a series of open course lectures about randomized algorithms available on youtube, but I can't say I'd recommend them.
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Dec 12, 2017 - 10:02pm PT
|
Thanks Yanqui, but at present I'm trying to unravel the connection between two forms of a functional derivative. I know I should have stayed away from functional analysis but it was so much fun fifty years ago.
;>(
|
|
Dingus McGee
Social climber
Where Safety trumps Leaving No Trace
|
|
|
Dec 13, 2017 - 06:03am PT
|
Thanks Yanqui for bringing to mind the possibility of randomness & other methods for finite automata as the possible agents in getting our minds free from determinism. As for the idea of free choice, we likely would have to have it to have behavior that was free will observed. It is obvious that we could have a form of free will yet not be able to make a free choice -- rules and laws?
Dennette, Green, and Pinker philosophically argue that the 18th century Church based idea of free will is not possible. We do not have minds that are
carte blanche
kärt ˈblänSH/Submit
noun
complete freedom to act as one wishes or thinks best.
"we were given carte blanche"
synonyms: free rein, a free hand, a blank check
"he gave his protégé carte blanche"
because we bring with us to each decision branch a head full of ideas & feelings that are used in making the next choice. If somehow we could come to a decision branch carte blanche we would have no basis to make any choice. A choice, in this case, would be free & random?
Biologically speaking the naive assumption may be that we are born tabula rasa.
ta·bu·la ra·sa
ˈtäbyo͝olə ˈräsə,ˈräzə/Submit
noun
an absence of preconceived ideas or predetermined goals; a clean slate.
"the team did not have complete freedom and a tabula rasa from which to work"
the human mind, especially at birth, viewed as having no innate ideas.
There is already a lot of mind research showing we are not born tabula rasa.
Werner's territory? Our karma bonds us to routine thinking based on our past. My take on karma is that we do experience a kind of karma because we have feelings and memory of deeds others have done to us but it seems we are not bonded to these past memories.
A biological way to look at determinism could be the real meal in this discussion? There are several differences between how NNN (numerical neural nets) and BNN (biological neural nets) actually perform. To this date I do not think we know of a truly biological random generator in our minds except the mind is emersed in an entropic situation that could by default [structure] have some randomness.
Secondly, the mind's neural nets likely have various kinds of latencies in signal arrival? and I suppose neurons just fire with or without all signals from the last sync time increment [does this exist?]. Such idiosyncracies could make the mind a little unpredictable, introduce an element of randomness, and break the cycle of simply being determined.
But even if this is the case for BNNs, what do we mean by free will? It is likely our minds are never totally free when making choices. Furthermore what basis would we have for choice if it were totally free?
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Dec 13, 2017 - 10:41am PT
|
Hey Yanqui, the days are getting loooong down yonder in Argentina.
Enjoy its benefits.
Sounds like your dopamine/melatonin/ Vit.D production is ramping up. Lol
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
|
Dec 13, 2017 - 11:58am PT
|
Ward: I can use all the help I can get!
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Dec 13, 2017 - 02:31pm PT
|
It is likely our minds are never totally free when making choices.
It's NOT the mind that can make free choices and free will.
It is the soul the living entity itself.
It is the soul that controls the mind.
The gross materialists are controlled by their mind.
The gross materialists do not have control of the reins of their minds and they are ships without their rudders.
The gross materialists are always clueless because of their total dependence on the inferior material plane of which they have no real business with ultimately .....
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 13, 2017 - 04:29pm PT
|
The limitation with trying to vet determined versus non-determined entirely from a 3rd person perspective is that you can only "see" mechanical processing. The data gleaned fits nicely or at least possibly into math models and algorithims and so forth, but it misses one crucial aspect - that we are aware of the process, regardless of how little we might know per the underlying determined, mechanical drivers. Viewed from the inside, you won't learn much about said mechanics (and yes, they are layered and incredibly nuanced and complex) but you will learn things beyond the blind spot of the 3rd person perspective - and every perspective has a blind spot(s). None are omniscient.
First assumptions from the objective-only camp are that consciousness is mechanical brain artifact and nothing more, and if not, consciousness would have to be separate and independent from brain. My sense of this is that both of these assumptions are mistaken. Mining the subjective for objective proof of any kind is, to me, as logically incoherent as expecting to find the subjective itself in dancing neurons, global activation patterns, and (fill in the blank). How brain and consciousness are seamlessly related - not THAT is a question worth pursuing IMO.
For a fascinating exercise, monitor your own process during a creative exercise involving NEW material, so memory cannot furnish a rote answer. The essential thing to note is the process that transpires during revisions of the original output (for lack of a better term). Notice also that the data streams involve much more than strictly sense data, logically worked over, as the creative process pings between the three stories of our triune brain (stem, limbic, and cortex). It is not just our rational minds that access the stream, so to speak.
Also, whatever we are working on is not always constructed by way of bits and discrete bits, but also by way of a global take that requires our focus to constantly throttle from narrow to wide. Also notice that the more conscious we are during the process, the better the result.
But yes, if we try and reckon this process from without, from the supposed 3rd person "view from nowhere," we will only see determined mechanical processing and outputs.
Content (memories, thoughts, feelings, sensations etc), I reckon, is largely determined, but the conscious process is not.
In the subjective adventures, the beginner often wonders: All the stuff that comes up in mind is probably determined by my brain, including where I place my attention.
What happens when you resist the urge or impulse to place your attention on this or that, simply keep your focus wide and pause WITHOUT trying to concentrate, paying no attention to WHAT comes up? Some want to find that out. What's going on pre-output?
Welcome to the rabbit hole...
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Dec 13, 2017 - 04:36pm PT
|
It's NOT the mind that can make free choices and free will.
It is the soul the living entity itself.
Does a fair coin make a free choice?
Not an actual coin but a hypothetical coin with a 50/50 chance of heads or tails.
Would such a coin be the soul the living entity itself?
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Dec 13, 2017 - 04:37pm PT
|
yanqui: . . . I think I disagree with you, . . . .
A wonderful declaration. It could only be made more gentle with the addition of the word, “may.”
I know sycorax and Mike L hate this, but it's easy and it's not that bad of a starting point:
If the word “hate” implies a rejection of existence, then I may be on the other end of the spectrum. I just don’t go so far as to be certain of much of anything. :-|
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2017 - 02:52am PT
|
Does a fair coin make a free choice?
If I flip a fair coin to decide to take the left road or the right road, do I make a free choice?
|
|
Dingus McGee
Social climber
Where Safety trumps Leaving No Trace
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2017 - 03:31am PT
|
If I flip a fair coin to decide to take the left road or the right road, do I make a free choice? - Yanqui
At least two processes are going on sequentially here. You first may have made a free choice to use the method of a coin toss as a means to choose which road. If you were forced to use that method then a free choice did not happen.
The second choice is to accept the outcome of the toss, which is likely random -- a fair coin. But whether you accept the outcome or not, either way, would be a free choice.
The situation of using a coin flip decision whose outcome we cannot control is in some ways similar to using a computer with [unknown]algorithms to make a decision. Either way, we are using/choosing tools to further a decision process.
Largo,
Content (memories, thoughts, feelings, sensations etc), I reckon, is largely determined, but the conscious process is not.
Largo's reckoning concurs with an article from ScAm a few years ago on free will. That author argued that decisions taking place over some time frame longer than an immediate decision were likely free will/choices.
|
|
Dingus McGee
Social climber
Where Safety trumps Leaving No Trace
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2017 - 05:19am PT
|
Largo,
But yes, if we try and reckon this process from without, from the supposed 3rd person "view from nowhere," we will only see determined mechanical processing and outputs.
This is merely your point of view of what a 3rd person account would be like. As a 3 rd party observer, I likely have no info on how a particular person's mind arrived a choosing -- yet alone to see the choice as a form of determined mechanical processing. We do sometimes say & hear, 'Somehow he arrived at that decision'. You are quite wrong in saying, "we will only" as even you can witness here on this thread there have been several different 3rd person takes on choosing rather than seeing it solely being a determined mechanical process .
A better wording for admission for your narrow line of interpretation would be:
But yes, if I try and reckon this process from without, from my supposed 3rd person "view from nowhere", I can only see determined mechanical processing and outputs .
Fine.
Do you lack some awareness in knowing when to use 'I' as opposed to 'we'? A creative revision would have clarified the text to be your POV. Or is this method of writing a continued example of the little man behind the curtain?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2017 - 07:42am PT
|
Oh, what happens when I flip a coin, is this free choice or not?
This is the dumb questions presented by people who haven't even understood who they are yet to begin with (modern science).
It's the same as not even learning the abc's yet but immediately jumping far beyond.
Far beyond is where they are totally clueless and that's where they spend their minds spinning in circles.
And they claim they are scientists.
Just rubber stamp every mental speculator as a PHd by the other mental speculators and you're experts on guessing.
Insanity ......
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2017 - 08:33am PT
|
After I replied to eeyonkee the second time (where'd he go?) I began to think that contrasting free choice with "determinism" (at least in the way I did before, when I took "determinism" to mean determined by past events) is not the best way to go to get a handle on this concept. I began to think that "choosingly freely" seems to have more to do with the process of how we decide something (and not just the imposed limits on those decisions that I mentioned in my second reply to eeyonkee). Choosing "freely" involves stuff like getting clear about where we want to go, creatively looking for options, trying to understand the consequences of the different lines of attack, analyzing and resisting, if need be, emotional or base impusles when they conflict with our goals, etc. There seems to be many psychological aspects involved. Sure there may be "external" restrictions which limit the choices we can make, but on the home front, choosing "freely" is a kind of skill which is starting to look (to me) more synomynous with making good (rational?) decisions. In some ways this isn't so different from Largo said. I don't see how the possibilty that humans (and animals too) have a capacity to make good decisions (and to execrcise and develop that capacity within the limits determined by genetics, environment, etc.) is in any way in conflict with the fact this process is a physical process taking place in the brain.
So I looked around on internet to see if anyone else was on the same page, and I found this, which seemed interesting to me:
https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/06/free-will-exists-and-is-measurable/486551/
https://aeon.co/essays/free-will-is-back-and-maybe-this-time-we-can-measure-it
Edit to add: IMO the article from Aeon makes some good points. However, I'm not so impressed with the idea of making a psychomteric. But then again, who knows?
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 14, 2017 - 09:53am PT
|
That's a great post, Yanque. Someone really digging into the core or it to see what is going on. Note the influence of psychological and emotional drivers in the creative process. But as mentioned, if you really want to get a handle of how the decision process works, it is my belief that you have to observe yourself DURING a creative task and see how awareness factors into the whole shebang, ESPECIALLY in the revision process. Ask a computer - either a present-day one or a model from some imagined future - to "create" something. Then tell it to revise the original output 100 times and see if said output improves markedly in the process, as it often happens in a conscious process. Why do you think that happens?
And Dingus McGee, wild accusations and intemperate speech do little to further your cause, though no one is certain what that is. "You are wrong" harangues - over replies dashed on in a second on my cell phone - merely blind you to the actual point.
When you say, "This is merely your point of view of what a 3rd person account would be like," you once again have missed the message. That is, from ANY 3rd person perspective, the blind spot is the subjective. Yes, a 3rd person perspective can render various takes on a given subject, but NO 3rd person scrutiny of the brain, for example, will disclose awareness, emotions, sensations, and experience themselves. This means that a perspective from without (3rd person) is at least one step removed from the very issue we are seeking to know: Mind. The way you have it - that the 3rd person can render a panoply of interpretations and data - opens the door to the possibility that given a sufficiently enlightened 3rd person perspective, one CAN see the subjective itself. And amigo, that just ain't so - we can easily see why.
The 3rd person perspective deals strictly with sense data, stuff we can physically detect or imply in a way to pull a measurement. At best you can observe and calculate the machinery and physical processes you believe "create" the subjective, if you are partial to the Genesis Metaphor. That leaves you with the Hard Problem, so have at it.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!