Free Will

[hefdaddy42]

The same way that every other subjective measure is made - you just make shit up.

[Rathma]

The longer your ear lobe, the more free will you have.

[hefdaddy42]

The longer your ear lobe, the more free will you have.

Sounds accurate to me.

[Jamesman42]

The longer your ear lobe, the more free will you have.

Sounds accurate to me.

As my Father says, I also agree. Therefore, in our divine coexistence and shared omniscience, this is a fact of life. May it be written in the sacred texts and inspired in you, Rathma, to let all human beings know this. Go forth and spread the Gospel of the Lobe.

[kirksnosehair]

what the hell just happened? 

[hefdaddy42]

Just go with it.

On a more serious note, I understand that there is little or no Free Will by strict philosophical terms.  Everyone is shaped by the circumstances of their birth and their environment.  However, there are people who rise above, and achieve greatness in spite of their beginnings.  So, for me, it's relative.

[XJDenton]

I believe humans operate according to the rules of quantum mechanics, just like any other system. Choice is merely an illusion that comes from our incomplete understanding of how the brain functions.

[Tick]

We are all just pre programmed robots. Our every move has been determined from the moment of our births.

[Scheavo]

I believe humans operate according to the rules of quantum mechanics, just like any other system. Choice is merely an illusion that comes from our incomplete understanding of how the brain functions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFLR5vNKiSw

Now, I think quantum mechanics could really go either way, when we learn more about it, but what we know about quantum mechanics does leave the door open for choice and free will.

[rumborak]

In my opinion, hoping that quantum mechanics leaves a spot big enough for freewill is the usual God of the Gaps thinking.

If anything, QM goes against freewill. The underlying, proven, plain statistical behavior of atoms (i.e. the wave function) shows that nothing "special" is going on at that level, no special direction of it or whatever.
Keep also in mind that QM still becomes regular Newtownian physics at big enough levels. And at the level of synapses it has long crossed that threshold.

rumborak

[Rathma]

Holy shit, that's pretty depressing to hear Michio Kaku make such a lousy argument. Doing away with determinism has absolutely no effect on the legitimacy or lack thereof of free will. Looks like another case of a scientist who should have stayed away from philosophy.

Keep also in mind that QM still becomes regular Newtownian physics at big enough levels. And at the level of synapses it has long crossed that threshold.

That's not really a good way to look at it. There's no threshold between QM and Newtonian physics. The behavior of particles/matter appear to be following certain laws depending on what kind of instrument is being used to make the observation. You can't abandon the implications of QM at a certain point just because they aren't immediately apparent.

[rumborak]

Roger Penrose is the same way. He writes brilliant books about physics, and then always squeezes his Creator into the last chapter with hair-raisingly stretched arguments.

rumborak

[Scheavo]

In my opinion, hoping that quantum mechanics leaves a spot big enough for freewill is the usual God of the Gaps thinking.

If anything, QM goes against freewill. The underlying, proven, plain statistical behavior of atoms (i.e. the wave function) shows that nothing "special" is going on at that level, no special direction of it or whatever.
Keep also in mind that QM still becomes regular Newtownian physics at big enough levels. And at the level of synapses it has long crossed that threshold.

rumborak

I wouldn't so much call it hoping, as pointing to a very problematic aspect of quantum mechanics.

Statistics, by it's very definition, is going to get rid of the issue brought up by this contention. Yes, statistically speaking, you basically know where something is going to be, but if you actually measure a specific electron, you run into issues. Statistics is a good way of looking at Newtonian physics, really. So I don't think it's really a separate issue.

And I by no means think it's definite. There are possible theories around quantum mechanics that simply have the future affecting the past/present, but again, it's all uncertain at this point... and I don't see a reason to think it'll ever not be uncertain. At the moment, I just have one simple problem with scientific reductionism regarding free will: why, given Occam's Razor, and Conservation of Energy, am I conscious at all? Why is there even the illusion, given that Occam's razor basically says that illusions such as this are false.

[rumborak]

I frankly don't see at all how Occam's Razor plays into this at all. Occam's Razor says that given the evidence, the simplest theory that explains the data is most likely the correct one.
Given that it is quite imaginable that a physical brain can give rise to a subjective experience of "consciousness", that is the simplest theory. The other theory, that there is an unobserved, unmeasurable effect that influences the overall brain in a way to give rise to freewill, is quite unlikely because it presumes myriad of things nobody has seen.
Much more likely is that we all just want to be special.

rumborak

[Scheavo]

Meh, if you're right, there no me "wanting" to be special.

Given that it is quite imaginable that a physical brain can give rise to a subjective experience of "consciousness", that is the simplest theory

But why should it? Why is energy being wasted and used to form consciousness? Something be imaginable is hardly a proof of it's existence, and something like this ignores the conscious traits of single-celled organism, slime molds, or ant swarms. It may be the simplest, but I don't think it does a very good job of actually describing all the data we see, it's incomplete, and therefor, shouldn't be the rut assumption of how consciousness is.

And what I'm saying is that, given our evidence, given what we know at the moment, I don't think science and determinism can actually explain consciousness. Where as I believe in free will, and recognize the full implications of that being a belief, I don't think that there is any scientific say on the matter. To say that this is proposing a theory isn't quite true, as it's mostly just pointing to flaws in current scientific theory; that there is no theory that explains the data in this case, so that means there's no reason to assume determinism is true. At some point, you run into epistemological boundaries - Heisenbergs Uncertainty - and we really can't answer the question either way.

[Rathma]

I personally don't see the connections being drawn between free will, determinism and consciousness.

I think the 'free will' that most people here have in mind is a fundamental source of cause, something that (at some level) is able to bring about effects independent of other causes. If there were such a thing, determinism would be false. But just because we've poked holes in determinist theories doesn't mean that we have to give more credit to free will. Free will and determinism could both be wrong (imo they both are). Consciousness is an entirely different matter... it's a feeling, not a force.

[Scheavo]

I think the 'free will' that most people here have in mind is a fundamental source of cause, something that (at some level) is able to bring about effects independent of other causes. If there were such a thing, determinism would be false. But just because we've poked holes in determinist theories doesn't mean that we have to give more credit to free will. Free will and determinism could both be wrong (imo they both are). Consciousness is an entirely different matter... it's a feeling, not a force.

I think what Michio Kaku is saying is that Free will and determinism are wrong, becuase of Heisenberg's uncertainty. Both of those theories are rooted in a Newtonian world, and are both highly related to cause and effect. I'd say this more than "pokes holes" in the determinism, we've undermined the basic tenants of that theory. Any deterministic theory has to be able to explain the quantum world, and so far, all have failed horrible.

Meanwhile, from what we know as of this moment, consciousness has a rather enigmatic role in quantum mechanics and our scientific world view. Any theory regarding our freedom or enslavement is really gonna have explain how our observations of reality effect the measurements we can and do gather, superpositioning of particles, etc. Unless this is explain away, we're left with conscious awareness being the only reason there is anything certain at all; why there is something instead of mere possibilities.
Consciousness cannot be merely an "illusion" if consciousness has a fundamental shaping force in the world we experience. Consciousness would be meaningless, then, and our awareness of something would not effect it's existence in the slightest. But that's not what we're left with in quantum mechanics, at least for right now.

[Rathma]

Meanwhile, from what we know as of this moment, consciousness has a rather enigmatic role in quantum mechanics and our scientific world view. Any theory regarding our freedom or enslavement is really gonna have explain how our observations of reality effect the measurements we can and do gather, superpositioning of particles, etc.

I know of the double slit experiment (that Dr. Quantum video on youtube) but am still a bit confused as to why different results are achieved when observing, or whatever. Still, what does this have to do with our "freedom or enslavement"? I don't see any connection. You seem to be advocating for some sort of free will but what's your definition?

[Scheavo]

Meanwhile, from what we know as of this moment, consciousness has a rather enigmatic role in quantum mechanics and our scientific world view. Any theory regarding our freedom or enslavement is really gonna have explain how our observations of reality effect the measurements we can and do gather, superpositioning of particles, etc.

I know of the double slit experiment (that Dr. Quantum video on youtube) but am still a bit confused as to why different results are achieved when observing, or whatever.
Still, what does this have to do with our "freedom or enslavement"?

If what is is supposed to be the reason we're determined, then our observations effecting what is seems to undermine the deterministic aspects, or at least create a weird loop.

I don't see any connection. You seem to be advocating for some sort of free will but what's your definition?

Sorta like you're reading a pick your own adventure style novel, but there are unimaginable amount of possibilities. I think I remember hearing it referred to as the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics at some point? But basically, we experience on reality, whereas in the quantum world, we see a world full of possibilities, with the event that comes to be is influenced by our observations of that reality; theoretically, those other possible worlds all exist, whereas I would contend that the one we experience is influenced by our conscious choices / agency, "free will."

And we also have a "destiny," which is to say we're thrown into the world in a certain way, at a certain time, etc, which all influences our choices and the world we experience. To be truly free, we have to break free from our "destiny," so to speak.

[Rathma]

If what is is supposed to be the reason we're determined, then our observations effecting what is seems to undermine the deterministic aspects, or at least create a weird loop.

I don't believe in free will or determinism, so it doesn't inform me anything about the possibility that there might be something such as free will. Even if somebody was able to just "will" something and that thing happens magically, that still doesn't tell me anything. It's a big leap to say that it's consciousness itself that is causing things in the quantum world.

[rumborak]

But why should it? Why is energy being wasted and used to form consciousness?

How do you know energy is being "wasted" on it? Energy is used by the brain in information processing of its senses, I am assuming you don't view that as "waste". How do you know that what you views as consciousness, isn't just the subjective view of an elaborate processing machine?
I have used this example before: How do you know a pocket calculator doesn't see its own output as a voluntary freewill action? Of course, we know that it is made of circuits and is forced to produce the output, but what argument do you have that it doesn't apply to us too, the more complex pocket calculators?
Neuroscience is vastly amounting evidence that every aspect of our personality is based on the physical brain (by analyzing people who had brain damage), so the burden of proof lies on you who's saying there's something extra going on.

There's also the confounding issue that many other animals have been shown to be self-aware. Do you include those animals in being "conscious"? If not, why? If yes, how come they got the "magic touch" too, but other animals don''t?

rumborak

[Scheavo]

If what is is supposed to be the reason we're determined, then our observations effecting what is seems to undermine the deterministic aspects, or at least create a weird loop.

I don't believe in free will or determinism, so it doesn't inform me anything about the possibility that there might be something such as free will. Even if somebody was able to just "will" something and that thing happens magically, that still doesn't tell me anything. It's a big leap to say that it's consciousness itself that is causing things in the quantum world.

Well, I'm not sure if I would call it the "will" either, but I don't know a better word to go at what I mean than free will. And I'm not saying that there wouldn't be a quantum world without our consciousness, rather there wouldn't be our world without consciousness.

But why should it? Why is energy being wasted and used to form consciousness?

How do you know energy is being "wasted" on it? Energy is used by the brain in information processing of its senses, I am assuming you don't view that as "waste". How do you know that what you views as consciousness, isn't just the subjective view of an elaborate processing machine?
I have used this example before: How do you know a pocket calculator doesn't see its own output as a voluntary freewill action? Of course, we know that it is made of circuits and is forced to produce the output, but what argument do you have that it doesn't apply to us too, the more complex pocket calculators?
Neuroscience is vastly amounting evidence that every aspect of our personality is based on the physical brain (by analyzing people who had brain damage), so the burden of proof lies on you who's saying there's something extra going on.
There's also the confounding issue that many other animals have been shown to be self-aware. Do you include those animals in being "conscious"? If not, why? If yes, how come they got the "magic touch" too, but other animals don''t?
rumborak

The body is tool-like in a way, you can only do with it what your body is capable of doing. Yes, we're restricted by that, but I never said we wouldn't. It's not surprising that people who experience brain damage experience changes of consciousness, and I think evidence is growing that points to our digestive track is nearly as important. Why though is that a problem for me? I'm not arguing we have direct freedom, rather that we influence what happens to us during our lives, perhaps only in a futural since. If I didn't say it before, I should say that I do think consciousness if an emergent property, so anything consciousness is able to do with a body is only capable insofar as the body is capable of it.

I don't see how this is problematic for me. And perhaps I didn't make it clear enough earlier, or you missed it, but I think the idea that the brain if the root of consciousness runs into trouble precisely because single-celled organisms, slime molds, and to a degree society / swarms, all show characteristics of conscious like behaviors. I guess I just don't see the point of consciousness if it does nothing. A calculator may be conscious, I honestly have no idea. If calculators are conscious, that raises just as many "out-there" scenarios as anything I'm proposing. You've been arguing that the brain is consciousness, so if that's true, it's just as hard for you to explain it as me. I think something as fundamental as consciousness needs an explanation other than, "it's just an emergent property with no use."

[rumborak]

The point in your argument I don't follow is, you say the physical brain is the "substrate" for the emergent property of consciousness, but then continue to say that the brain is not equivalent to the consciousness. Is your point akin to saying the brain is the hardware, but the software is making use of the hardware, but we don't know what the software is? Or are you saying there is an outside element that creates the freewill?

For the sake of scientific inquiry, shouldn't the assumption be the lack of anything additional to the physical brain? The brain is very complex, and nobody can with a straight face say that, from a complexity point of view, the brain couldn't give rise to something like that. The brain has trillions of interconnected synapses, that is far more than the rather simplistic human choice process would need.

rumborak

[Scheavo]

The point in your argument I don't follow is, you say the physical brain is the "substrate" for the emergent property of consciousness, but then continue to say that the brain is not equivalent to the consciousness. Is your point akin to saying the brain is the hardware, but the software is making use of the hardware, but we don't know what the software is? Or are you saying there is an outside element that creates the freewill?

Sorry, if I said brain, I meant body. Or I guess then we might just get into a discussion on what we mean by brain? My point was that life-forms that don't have brains as we have them still show signs of consciousness, and to me, that seems to be more of a problem for you than me. And as for the software comparison, I think the better analogy for me might that consciousness writes the software that operates on the hardware. Software comes "preloaded," but we do have the ability to modify and alter. 

For the sake of scientific inquiry, shouldn't the assumption be the lack of anything additional to the physical brain? The brain is very complex, and nobody can with a straight face say that, from a complexity point of view, the brain couldn't give rise to something like that. The brain has trillions of interconnected synapses, that is far more than the rather simplistic human choice process would need.

But the assumption that the brain is what creates consciousness runs into problems with eukaryote's (my biology is very rusty, so that may be the wrong term), so I'd say it's an inappropriate use of Occam's Razor . Also, considering we don't have a real test for someone else being conscious, we still all have ourselves as indication that there is something additional to the simple physical brain. I'm not sure it's really physical possible to prove consciousness, at least if you do, you'll finally have an irrefutable answer to solipsism. As for as it being possibly true, I think it is still possible that you're right. In terms of scientific inquiry, I think it's valid to investigate this possibility. However, I do not think it's a solid fact as of yet, and I don't think it's write to default to determinism

So, neurons firing requires the movement, freeing, and flow of electrons; but the escape of an electron, on an individual basis, isn't strictly deterministic.  Neuroscience can point to neurons firing as good indications of what happens, but they can't really give a physically appropriate reasons for why that Neuron fires, becuase that explanation runs face into quantum mechanics. Our conscious awareness seems to play a role in our daily experiences, and over what neurons are firing in the brain; and given what we know about quantum mechanics, is it not at least possible that self-consciousness is responsible for the occasional firing of some neurons?  Like above, I'm not really saying this is true, simply that what we know now leaves open the possibilities of something akin to this.

Or perhaps it is just random, we're on for the ride, and there is no determined future. We'd then be both not free, and not determined.

[rumborak]

My point was that life-forms that don't have brains as we have them still show signs of consciousness, [..]
But the assumption that the brain is what creates consciousness runs into problems with eukaryote's

What do you consider as consciousness if you say eukaryotes and organisms without brains in general exhibit it?!
I am myself not sure what the exact definition of consciousness is, but I don't think it will spread much further than primates. dolphins and whales.
Are you considering the response to external stimuli as "consciousness"?

rumborak

[Scheavo]

My point was that life-forms that don't have brains as we have them still show signs of consciousness, [..]
But the assumption that the brain is what creates consciousness runs into problems with eukaryote's

What do you consider as consciousness if you say eukaryotes and organisms without brains in general exhibit it?!
I am myself not sure what the exact definition of consciousness is, but I don't think it will spread much further than primates. dolphins and whales.

Those would be forms of self-consciousness, i.e. being aware that you are conscious. That makes for an interesting debate as well, because I doubt my dog is self-conscious. Self-consciousness seems to be different, but we don't really know how or why it is; and as I was pointing to before, it seems odd that these forms of self-consciousness are important factors in how an animal behaves, and has, in our case, proven to be a rather boonful evolutionary trait.

Are you considering the response to external stimuli as "consciousness"?

Well, pretty much. A rock doesn't response to external stimuli, and I wouldn't call a rock conscious. A eukaryote needs to eat to live, and it needs to move towards what it finds to eat to try and eat it, etc. I'd say all life is conscious, on some level, in some fashion. It doesn't seem to be purely a chemical reaction/response, it's a response to a World, and a World is a prime reason to think something is conscious. That's what I consider consciousness, having a World.

[rumborak]

I'm not dissing your definition of consciousness, but boy it's so far outside of what most people would define as consciousness, it's not surprising that it took us that long to get to the bottom of this

rumborak

[Scheavo]

I'm not dissing your definition of consciousness, but boy it's so far outside of what most people would define as consciousness, it's not surprising that it took us that long to get to the bottom of this

rumborak

Just to be clear, when I say a eukaryote may be conscious, I don't really mean something we could directly compare to. I don't think language is universal, and language is a huge part of my consciousness. It might be something like constantly living in a pure meditative state, I honestly don't know.

And ya, probably a little bit different than most people. Maybe if everybody read Heidegger Being and Time there might be more agreement, but that ain't happening.