Kevin's Watch

I'm a staunch determinist, for the most part. Regarding the quantum argument, the impression I've always had is that although there are these strange (I couldn't think of the right term to use) occurances on the quantum scale, the observable macro-scale effects tend to be determined not by individual quantum events but by the macro-probabilities associated with very large numbers of events: a situation which severely reduces the significance of those elements. It is conceivable that these quantum events affect determination, but it would be to a very small degree--minor deviations with incredibly low probabilities.

James wrote: 1. A is A.

2. Reality is absolute. Nothing acts despite or outside of reality.

3. The principle of cause and effect is valid.

4. It has been established that cause and effect mechanically determines macroscopic systems.

5. Randomness at the quantum (and sub-quantum) level is disputed. Since we do not posses the sufficient technology to effectively observe the most fundamental processes of the Universe, it cannot be argued with any certainty what so ever that the apparent randomness is truly random.

If these terms are accepted, I will enter the discussion. If they are not, I won't waste my time.

1. Yes.
2. No. It has been experimentally verified that counter-factuals (stuff that doesn't happen, but may happen) play a significant role in shaping reality.
3. No. The concept of causation is a human invention used to describe correlated events. It really is no more valid than supposing objects seek specific, relevant goals (teleology). Just because we see objects tending to behave in certain ways doesn't mean that they have either causal or purposeful (goal-driven) forces driving them in these ways.
4. No. We have mathematical descriptions of recognized spatio-temporal patterns. While it is remarkable how accurately these descriptions can be applied, this doesn't mean that the world is determined. These are Newtonian, clockwork pictures of the universe which have been discarded for nearly a century.
5. No. Randomness at the quantum level isn't disputed by physicists. It may be disputed by people in other professions. But the guys and girls who actually study this stuff as their profession agree that randomness is real. Einstein was wrong on this one.

Wasting time is relative. But I don't see a failure to have people agree with you beforehand as reason not to debate. It wouldn't be a debate otherwise.

Murrin, you are right that on macro-scales, quantum randomness seems to disappear. However, quantum properties make themselves known on large scales all the time, for many structures in the universe. But even in those cases where quantum properties aren't apparent, the mystery still remains as to how the random world of quantum reality produces the apparently determined world at our scale. There is no consistent explanation for where/when/how that transition between scales takes place. And it's not merely an issue of scale, because some quantum properties can traverse light years (quantum entanglement, for instance).

The grand unification theory, the Holy Grail of physics, is in part a search for the unification of general relativity and quantum mechanics (gravity and the other three forces). The big and the small are yet to be united into one coherent picture.

Malik23 wrote:

James wrote: 1. A is A.

2. Reality is absolute. Nothing acts despite or outside of reality.

3. The principle of cause and effect is valid.

4. It has been established that cause and effect mechanically determines macroscopic systems.

5. Randomness at the quantum (and sub-quantum) level is disputed. Since we do not posses the sufficient technology to effectively observe the most fundamental processes of the Universe, it cannot be argued with any certainty what so ever that the apparent randomness is truly random.

If these terms are accepted, I will enter the discussion. If they are not, I won't waste my time.

Wasting time is relative. But I don't see a failure to have people agree with you beforehand as reason not to debate. It wouldn't be a debate otherwise.

There is no reason to believe that two conclusions, both fully valid, will be compatible if they are derived from seperate premises. I will not enter a debate under such terms. The fundamentals must come first. It would be a waste of my time debating with you, since you would be arguing from premises that I have already rejected, and vice versa.

Hey, that's fine. But I think all things are debatable, even fundamental assumptions. If you can't back up your assumptions, then your argument was never on solid ground to begin with.

Malik23 wrote:Hey, that's fine. But I think all things are debatable, even fundamental assumptions. If you can't back up your assumptions, then your argument was never on solid ground to begin with.

Well yes, of course the fundamentals can be debated... but how fundamental does the disagreement go? If it is rooted at the axiomatic level then we would be left debating an entire philosophical construct from the ground up, and that would require far more time and effort than I am prepared to invest (which is the whole reason I don't like open, informal debates like this).

Malik23 wrote:Fist, I don't see any "lack of education shining through." You're making excellent points.

Well then I'll take your view of my posts over my own! Thanks.

Malik23 wrote:While I wouldn't go so far as to claim that freewill is obvious to everyone, therefore it is real (remember that the geocentric solar system was "obvious to everyone" at one time),

I would not go that far either. But I would go so far as to say the burden of proof in this debate is on the one saying that what is universally felt to be self-evident is not the case after all. Some people noticed some events that seemed to contradict the idea that the earth was the center of the universe. But still, it may have been the case. It could have been that the earth is, and the stuff that suggested it is not was explained by this or that. So they looked further into the matter, and all evidence supports the idea that the earth is not the center of the universe.

Now, some people notice that cause & effect seems to rule all aspects of the universe at all times, so free will should not be possible. But still, it may be that free will does exist. So they are looking further into the matter. It does not seem that any specific brain structure explains what appears to us to be awareness and free will. And, while some aspects of the "mind" seem tied to a region or network of the brain, awareness and free will are not among them. At least not that I've heard. Perhaps the Intergrated Theory of Mind is the answer. Perhaps, in entirely cause & effect ways, it answers the questions you and I have been asking.

James wrote:Well yes, of course the fundamentals can be debated... but how fundamental does the disagreement go? If it is rooted at the axiomatic level then we would be left debating an entire philosophical construct from the ground up . . .

Welcome to the Close!

, and that would require far more time and effort than I am prepared to invest (which is the whole reason I don't like open, informal debates like this).

Understandable. I'm just one of those weirdos who actually majored in philosophy. I like debating entire philosophical constructs from the ground up.

But alas, even I must stop for work. Time to go sale some roofs. Later.

Fist and Faith wrote:

Loremaster wrote:

Malik23 wrote:Let’s start with a common sense approach. Clearly, we make decisions.

Which I haven't disputed.

Saying we make decisions, but that we have no choice but to make the decisions we make, is sort of the same thing as saying we do not make decisions.

*sigh* You need to stop misreading what I am writing.

1. A decision making process occurs.
2. What is it that is involved in the decision making?
3. Are there laws which govern said processes to make a decision?
4. Are there any other factors that are involved - like education, learning, genetics, etc?
5. If we understand and can measure all of those processes, perhaps then decision making is 'like' a mechanical procedure (dont take the analogy literally).

But at the end of the day, a decision is made. I am arguing that all of the (many) factors involved perhaps can be understood. You are arguing that the magical element of the mind will never be understood. Ergo, your position is untenable.

Loremaster wrote: *sigh* You need to stop misreading what I am writing.

That's one way to look at it. Another way is that you could be clearer in making your points. Or, in the end, perhaps he just disagrees. We're all coming at this from different assumptions, understanding, and education. And we're all using words that have different meanings depending on which worldview you stick them in.

I thought his point was valid. A decision in which there is no freedom to actually choose doesn't seem like a decision to us (granted, that's because we're using "decision" differently than you; we mean an act by a free agent, not a mechanical process). If there was only one possible outcome for a given decision process--based on one's DNA and experiences--then it's not really a choice, even if you're calling that "the decision making process."

But at the end of the day, a decision is made. I am arguing that all of the (many) factors involved perhaps can be understood. You are arguing that the magical element of the mind will never be understood. Ergo, your position is untenable.

First of all, a position is not untenable just because one claims that the issue at hand will never be understood. The idea that the universe is explicable is an assumption . There's absolutely no guarantee that this assumption is itself tenable. Maybe we've just been lucky because we've limited our investigations to things that can be easily explained. There's a big universe out there. We're sitting on one small speck.

But, admittedly, that's not proof of freewill. I'm not arguing for something magical, and I don't think Fist is either. Neither am I arguing for something inexplicable (and I don't think Fist is either). You ask us to not misread or misrepresent you, so returning the favor would be appropriate.

Just because the will might be free doesn't mean that we can't understand it. And the converse of that point is that just because something is understood doesn't mean that it's not free. I don't want to misrepresent what you said, but by stating your point in such a manner, you seem to imply that the process of understanding something is always nothing more than rendering it in mechanical terms. That's another underlying bias you seem to be working with--one which is untenable. Understanding something isn't merely rendering it in mechanical terms. (If it were, we wouldn't misunderstand each other so easily; we could just write a formula and be done with it.)

I think that freewill, is natural, a property of physical brains, and completely understandable with future scientific developments and/or discoveries, and that it will still remain free (i.e. not mechanically deterministic). Just to be clear.

Even if you understand every single factor going into making a choice, there's still an event at the end of that chain which can be described as, "making the decision." Education, experience, environment, situation, and DNA do indeed influence one's choice, but at the end, the choice can be made or not made. Which one of those factors accounts for that? The act is distinct from the factors which influence the act. Are you saying that, given a set of influencing factors, it's impossible to not make the decision? That we are forced into making a decision by the factors which go into making that decision? I think that position is untenable. You probably disagree.

In the end, if choice is a mechanical, deterministic process, then there's no choice. If reductionism is true, and it still makes sense to use the word, "decision," then what you're really saying is that atoms make decisions. You'd have to admit that education, experience, and environmental influence only affect atoms, not people, because (according to reductionism) people are nothing more than atoms. So you can characterize our position as "magic." But we can turn that around and present a ridiculous straw man that your position is: atoms can make decisions. And I think that characterization actually carries a lot more weight, becuase if you're not saying this, then you have to abandon the word "decision" altogether, because atoms don't make decisions (that would be more magical than what we're saying).

Which, I think, was Fist's point.

Loremaster wrote:*sigh* You need to stop misreading what I am writing.

1. A decision making process occurs.
2. What is it that is involved in the decision making?
3. Are there laws which govern said processes to make a decision?
4. Are there any other factors that are involved - like education, learning, genetics, etc?
5. If we understand and can measure all of those processes, perhaps then decision making is 'like' a mechanical procedure (dont take the analogy literally).

But at the end of the day, a decision is made. I am arguing that all of the (many) factors involved perhaps can be understood.

No matter what I think you're saying, I get it wrong. So let me try this. A very simple matter. I LOVE pecan pie and chocolate cake. I may not have a choice about those loves. I don't think or feel as if I do. But what if I must choose between them? There is no possible way I can have both. I get one, and cannot have the other.

Do you believe I am able to choose either one? Can my decision truly go either way? Or do you believe all of the many factors will cause me to choose one over the other? That is, if you were omniscient; if you knew my genome completely; you knew every event that I ever experienced; and you know all the ways that all of those things combine - would you know what I was going to choose before I chose?

Fist and Faith wrote: Or do you believe all of the many factors will cause me to choose one over the other? That is, if you were omniscient; if you knew my genome completely; you knew every event that I ever experienced; and you know all the ways that all of those things combine - would you know what I was going to choose before I chose?

I think that's what he's saying, Fist. At least that's what determinism is.

Of course our DNA could in no way have programmed us to like one dessert over another. The natural selection factors which shaped us over the eons works much too slowly to have taken pecan pie into account. So Lore might attribute the choice to environment and experience, if I understand his position correctly. For instance, your past experiences with these desserts would in some way influence your choice. And perhaps the particular restaurant you're in might have a better reputation for their chocolate cake as opposed to pecan pie. That would also influence your choice.

The possibility of choosing either one is a good point. But what bothers me more is the hesitation and indecision which might occur (as I said with my beer and steak example earlier). If this is a mechanical process, I don't see how indecision could ever happen. It's a simple choice. It doesn't take a lot of processing power. There's not a lot of variables. So why does such an easy choice stump our decision making process? Indeed, why do we ever agonize over any choice, if they happen automatically without any input from our free will? I suppose one could say that the environmental factors influencing our decision could be "perfectly balanced" in cases like these. But that's a little hard to accept. There can never be perfect balance between competing factors. And a deterministic process happens like clock-work, just like cranking out a computation. So given a small number of variables (i.e. the taste of pecan pie vs the taste of chocolate cake), no amount of difference between the two--no matter how small--would be enough to stump a deterministic, computational process. If our brain really is like a computer, it could easily distinguish between 0.0001 and 0.0002, for instance (assuming we could quantify personal preferences with such numbers).

Actually, that last point made me realize something. For this process to be deterministic, you'd HAVE to be able to quantify preferences. Otherwise, you'd never be able to say you prefer something more than another (the only "more" in a mechanical process is a numerically quantifiable "more") How in the world does the brain process a mathematics of preference? How does one influence ever outweigh another? These are things that determinists don't even try to explain. I've never heard of any mathematician devise a formula to quantify personal values. And yet this MUST exist, if there is a mechanical (i.e. computational) way that the brain calculates these choices in its decision process . . . if determinism is true.

It's one thing to say there are many factors in a particular chain of events leading up to a decision. But that doesn't at all explain how one factor trumps another factor along the way. It doesn't explain why some things are more valuable to us that others. Indeed, value is a human invention--it's not a mechanical process at all. No other process in the universe proceeds according to which factor is more valuable. Indeed, there is absolutely no mechanical way to compute value. Things are only valuable to humans, not atoms.

Choice, Malik, is meaningless; it is not the choice that is predetermined. The notion of decision requires will: and the argument you are having difficulty grasping states that there is no will. It is not decision that is predetermined: it is every minute facet of the individual's thought process, and every facet of the physical processes within and around them. Your hesitation to choose is as much based on previous events as your final choice is.

Malik and Fist.

I will admit that perhaps I could reword my argument, so that it might be my fault. So in that regard, if it is the case, I apologise. I write most of my posts after work, so I might simply be tired and therefore not clear.

Or do you believe all of the many factors will cause me to choose one over the other? That is, if you were omniscient; if you knew my genome completely; you knew every event that I ever experienced; and you know all the ways that all of those things combine - would you know what I was going to choose before I chose?

Spot on. But even if you believe that there's a little bit that can't be explained, I equate that with the paranormal (the literal meaning of the word - beyond normal, and hence the reason I said 'untenable', as I don't think it helps to pull the argument to this area). Regardless, that 'bit' that makes free will has to exist within some ordered system (whether it be quantum, the soul, etc) and therefore is amenable to being understood. And once that happens I theorise we will understand the factors behind it. I do not think that you can have the 'spark of free will' arise from chaos - it's counter-intuitive.

Another way of looking at it is to use the Chinese Room metaphor (kudos to Malik for bringing that excellent thought experiment into this debate). I do not think that it stops at the man in the room. Reductio ad Infinitum, we have to explain what is it in the man that perceives and acts, and so on. Does it logically mean it goes into infinity? I don't think so. At some point, the 'spark' might be understood.

Excellent arguments, all. Especially Murrin.

Sorry for double posting, but why hasn't Esmer responded in this thread. I am sure he would add some interesting points. Probably to my dismay!

Loremaster wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:Or do you believe all of the many factors will cause me to choose one over the other? That is, if you were omniscient; if you knew my genome completely; you knew every event that I ever experienced; and you know all the ways that all of those things combine - would you know what I was going to choose before I chose?

Spot on.

Well then I don't see how this is an inaccurate statement about your beliefs:

Fist and Faith wrote:

Loremaster wrote:

Malik23 wrote:Let’s start with a common sense approach. Clearly, we make decisions.

Which I haven't disputed.

Saying we make decisions, but that we have no choice but to make the decisions we make, is sort of the same thing as saying we do not make decisions.

Being able to tell me which dessert I was going to "choose" before I made the "choice" is the same as calculating where all the billiard balls are going to go once the cue is in motion. For that matter, if you were omniscient, with all the knowledge I described in my previous post, you'd know with how much force I was going to hit the cue, and in exactly which direction, so you could calculate where all the balls were going to go even before I hit the cue. Hell, even before I walked into the bar!!

What are your definitions of decision and choice that allow you to believe what you do, yet still say we make decisions/choices?

Loremaster wrote:But even if you believe that there's a little bit that can't be explained, I equate that with the paranormal (the literal meaning of the word - beyond normal, and hence the reason I said 'untenable', as I don't think it helps to pull the argument to this area).

I don't dispute you. But the universe might be an example of a causeless thing, so free will is in good company. Unexplainable as it may seem, I find the opposite view to be absurd. I don't mean that in any insulting sense; just incomprehensible. The thought that this is all a farce... I can't imagine.

Of course, if you're right, I do not have the ability to change my mind anyway. My DNA and events in my life have caused this in me.

And, as I've said, it's self-evident. Something that everybody takes as a given. Something some (you, Lincoln, etc) come to disbelieve for intellectual reasons, not because it ever feels false. Nobody ever thought, "I don't seem to feel this thing all these other people are always talking about." (As is the case with many people and, for example, religion.) Before I am willing to assume the most important thing to me does not exist, that its true nature can be reduced to calculations, I'm going to need some questions answered. The ones Malik and I have been asking.

Loremaster wrote:Regardless, that 'bit' that makes free will has to exist within some ordered system (whether it be quantum, the soul, etc) and therefore is amenable to being understood. And once that happens I theorise we will understand the factors behind it. I do not think that you can have the 'spark of free will' arise from chaos - it's counter-intuitive.

I do not have even the most hair-brained guess about how it might be. But it's possible that cause & effect is not the only way anything can exist in our universe. Heck, I even heard a couple people say subatomic particles pop in and out of existence for no reason at all. And, again, the universe might be causeless. Maybe there are places or aspects of the universe where there is no change whatsoever - no c&e. Maybe there are places or aspects where things change without cause. In one episode of ST: Voyager, they were in a place where effects came before their causes.

I don't have a clue. I just know that if I am going to pursue one crazy idea or another - free will in what is generally accepted to be a c&e universe, or the theory that the most important part of our identity is an illusion and our lives are a farce - I'm going with the first. Heh.

Fist and Faith wrote:Well then I don't see how this is an inaccurate statement about your beliefs.

It's not a belief. It's a theory.

Belief:
–noun 1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

Theory:
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.

Fist and Faith wrote:Being able to tell me which dessert I was going to "choose" before I made the "choice" is the same as calculating where all the billiard balls are going to go once the cue is in motion. For that matter, if you were omniscient, with all the knowledge I described in my previous post, you'd know with how much force I was going to hit the cue, and in exactly which direction, so you could calculate where all the balls were going to go even before I hit the cue. Hell, even before I walked into the bar!!

What are your definitions of decision and choice that allow you to believe what you do, yet still say we make decisions/choices?

A decision is a decision is a decision. My argument simply states that there are many factors, that are part of cause and effect, that are involved in the process for making a decision. I'm concerned you are again equating this with the absence of consciousness (which I disagree with).

A choice is made. However, it's that the choice is the product of many many factors. That's my argument.

In emergentist or generative philosophy of cognitive sciences and evolutionary psychology, free will does not exist. However an illusion of free will is experienced due to the generation of infinite behaviour from the interaction of finite-deterministic set of rules and parameters. Thus the unpredictability of the emerging behaviour from deterministic processes leads to a perception of free will, even though free will as an ontological entity does not exist.

As an illustration, the strategy board-games chess and Go have rigorous rules in which no information (such as cards' face-values) is hidden from either player and no random events (such as dice-rolling) happen within the game. Yet, chess and especially Go with its extremely simple deterministic rules, can still have an extremely large number of unpredictable moves. By analogy, emergentists or generativists suggest that the experience of free will emerges from the interaction of finite rules and deterministic parameters that generate infinite and unpredictable behaviour. Yet, if all these events were accounted for, and there were a known way to evaluate these events, the seemingly unpredictable behaviour would become predictable.

Dynamical-evolutionary psychology, cellular automata and the generative sciences, model emergent processes of social behaviour on this philosophy, showing the experience of free will as essentially a gift of ignorance or as a product of incomplete information.

Fist, what is your opinion on nature and nurture and their impact upon the growth of a human being?

Fist wrote:you'd know with how much force I was going to hit the cue, and in exactly which direction, so you could calculate where all the balls were going to go even before I hit the cue. Hell, even before I walked into the bar!!

No. The whole point is that Loremaster wouldn't know, even if he knew you a 100%. Because he doesn't know that someone is going to blow cigarette smoke at you when you pull back the queue.

Btw, I'm with Loremaster on this one: If you don't know - or even attempt to propose - any mechanisms for this free will, what will you have it be? What is it but a kind of antropocentric religion we invent because we can't bear the thought of being "slaves to physical mechanisms"?

I for one am glad that my slavery of physical mechanisms has led me relatively unscathed through 38 years of dificult choices.

Take a ridiculously simple organism as a jellyfish. These animals have very primitive organs of light perception making the swim towards a light source. Do they have free will? Where, in the evolution from chnidaria to modern organisms (animals, as I am not sure whether plants or fungi have a free wiil) does the concept of free will arise?

Allow me a modest guess: It arises in organisms with sufficient complexity to make it impossible for homo sapiens to fully qantify all the external stimuli and internal neurological triggers, that determine an organisms actions.

Prebe wrote:

Fist wrote:you'd know with how much force I was going to hit the cue, and in exactly which direction, so you could calculate where all the balls were going to go even before I hit the cue. Hell, even before I walked into the bar!!

No. The whole point is that Loremaster wouldn't know, even if he knew you a 100%. Because he doesn't know that someone is going to blow cigarette smoke at you when you pull back the queue.

Certainly he knows about that. He also knows everything about that person's DNA and past experiences, and can calculate exactly when the smoke will be blown, exactly how much will be blown, with how much force. And the sound of the giggle of the young lady on the other side of the room when some guy fed her a witty pick-up line a half-hour ago, and the degree to which the giggle might still be distracting me. And the condition of the left rear tire on the car that's about to pass by the building, and the state of mind of the driver who's pushing the tire too hard...

Prebe wrote:Btw, I'm with Loremaster on this one: If you don't know - or even attempt to propose - any mechanisms for this free will, what will you have it be? What is it but a kind of antropocentric religion we invent because we can't bear the thought of being "slaves to physical mechanisms"?

As I've said, if you are correct, I have no choice but to feel and think what I do regarding this matter. (Or any other matter, for that matter. ) It cannot be otherwise, can it? From the beginning...

1) I was born. My DNA made me a certain way. I was sensitive to light, heat, and sound. Maybe a little more than some babies, maybe a little less than others. But when I came into the world, I had no choice but to cry at all the input I was suddenly getting. (Or not cry. I really don't remember. Maybe some wimpering.)

2) And for all the reasons of their lives, my parents reacted to that in a certain way. Maybe they were thrilled to hear me cry. Maybe annoyed. And maybe the doctor said, "Wow! He's loud!"

3) Now I react, in whatever way my DNA made me to react to such things. And maybe my brain's hardwiring reacted to the particular qualities of that doctor's voice in one way or another. If my parents were annoyed by my cry, I may have begun to withdraw from the world; if they liked it, I may have felt comforted and safe.

And it goes on and on, yes? And at no point was there any possibility of anything happening other than what happened. And at no point will there be such a possibility. We do what the falling dominoes tell us to do. And so I wish Loremaster would use different words.

Loremaster wrote:A decision is a decision is a decision. My argument simply states that there are many factors, that are part of cause and effect, that are involved in the process for making a decision. I'm concerned you are again equating this with the absence of consciousness (which I disagree with).

A choice is made. However, it's that the choice is the product of many many factors. That's my argument.

We do not say the billiard balls make decisions/choices to move in one direction or another. They are entirely at the mercy of outside events. If we are also in that situation, then we merely move where we are moved to. I believe the definitions of "decision" and "choice" can be made to fit your stance, but I do not think they should be. I think the words were made by people who were differentiating between things they thought did not have free will and us, who they thought did.

Loremaster wrote:I'm concerned you are again equating this with the absence of consciousness (which I disagree with).

Perhaps. Again, we have not really defined these terms. And if we try, I'm likely to say they are inextricably bound together anyway, so it doesn't matter.

Fist wrote:And it goes on and on, yes? And at no point was there any possibility of anything happening other than what happened. And at no point will there be such a possibility. We do what the falling dominoes tell us to do. And so I wish Loremaster would use different words.

Try for arguments sake to move down through the evolutionary tree, and tell me when you think free will stops being a factor. Are things without brains subjected to determinism? Or are they defenseles victims of "brainophores", that with their mysterious "will" are not subject to the otherwise well established natural laws?