Does Free Will Exist? [Archive]

Pedersen

10-03-2008, 02:13 AM

I've moved some segments of your post around to avoid repeating my answers. I apologize if it ruins any of your arguments.

Are you saying that because we have instincts we do not have free will?

No, I'm saying that we all have the following things in common:

I have a body.
In that body is a brain.
The brain is exclusively composed of physical matter.
All physical matter is affected by other physical matter in some way.
The brain is responsible for all decision making processes.
The brain, being affected by physical matter, therefore has its decision making processes affected by physical matter.
Any idea of free will relies on the brain being able to make a choice independently of outside influence.
The brain is unable to completely ignore physical matter (its own or other) during decision making processes. If the electrical impulses move in one direction, one decision will be made. If they move differently, a different decision will be made.
Since the brain is incapable of acting independently from the physical matter that composes it, and since the brain is purely physical matter, and since free will requires the ability to act independently of outside influence, there is no free will.

Do you believe in God?
His omnipotence and us having free will are not mutually exclusive.

Irrelevant. Since you've capitalized god, that tends to indicate a monotheistic line of thinking. I'll invite you to debate the critical logic failure (http://www.fratching.com/showthread.php?t=679) in all monotheistic religions I'm aware of in the thread about that failure. And which I've covered fairly well there, I think.

If you don't, then you have only evolution and survival of the fittest to blame for what you apparently think is a bad situation (being a slave to our instincts).

Who said it was a bad thing? Us not having free will is neither good nor bad, it simply is. And is impossible for us to change. All we can do is let the amazing programming within our brains cope with this realization to the best of its abilities.

I'm not sure where you heard otherwise.

Probably from the same place you heard me say "Since we have instincts, we have no free will."

Again, though, if you wish to argue the religious aspect of free will, start with my arguments about the critical logic failure (http://www.fratching.com/showthread.php?t=679). Once those are debunked (and I've yet to find a way they can be), I'll entertain arguments that state something similar to "We have free will because God says so."

Flyndaran

10-03-2008, 02:21 AM

What makes up a person? Nature, nurture, and chance. For free will to exist there must be a separate outside aspect of humanity divorced from the physical world yet able to influence it.
So unless you believe in souls, there is no logical reason to believe in free will.

Slytovhand

10-03-2008, 03:38 PM

Yeah - there are a couple of holes in the arguments presented.

Though in general I follow the logic, there are some assumptions thrown in for good measure.

Firstly... Do you believe in God? If you don't, then you have only evolution and survival of the fittest

Nope - there are a couple of other possibilities. Even if you do believe in 'God', it depends on exactly how 'God' is defined. Usually in such topics, they use Anslem's God - which is the standard Omniscient, Omnipotent and All Good. (yep - all with capitals too :p)

But that's a fairly Judeo-Christian version.

There are other variants of god in existence... including the one that created everything (such as via a Big Bang) and sodded off and left everything to fend for itself.

I'm a pagan... what's been presented here doesn't have much to do with my perspectives on things... Nor would it to a Hindu (Brahma is a god - the head of the gods!!).

Next... The brain is responsible for all decision making processes....
Any idea of free will relies on the brain being able to make a choice independently of outside influence.

Massive jumps in assumptions there!

As Flyn pointed out, this presumes you have no place for a soul!

But let's also throw something else into the pit without bringing in such metaphysical concepts.

There's a philosopher out there (forgot his name) who came up with the idea of 'qualia' to explain 'redness' (as an example). 'Red' is a frequency of light. 'Redness' is our perception of it. It's not just that our rods and cones detect that frequency (yep - I know it's only 1 of them... not bothered with researching tonight...). But that doesn't say anything about how we actually 'experience' that red. There's a quality to 'red' that just doesn't get said by saying 220 Hz (or so...). This quality he called 'qualia', and it's non-physical.

This was a dualistic version of the mind, first espoused by Plato... (well, again, probably not, but he's credited as a big 'father' of it...).

if you wish to argue the religious aspect of free will, As per my other comments at the beginning... only (as you point out) the monotheistic versions...

Umm - done... (sorry if it comes off crappy.. I did a 9 /2 hour shift today, and back here at work tonight for another 8 hrs).

Slyt

MystyGlyttyr

10-03-2008, 04:08 PM

Eh. Either I do or I don't. And if I don't, I can't tell the difference because it doesn't change how my life is being lived. Whether it's my brain or my mind or me or God or whatever telling me to eat or to jump in the middle of some big asshole, it still happens, regardless. If it walks, talks, looks, and sounds like a duck, then it's probably a duck.

So to me, whether it exists or not is irrelevant, because it SEEMS to exist, therefore, my reality is that it does. Your reality may vary.

Pedersen

10-03-2008, 04:10 PM

Yeah - there are a couple of holes in the arguments presented.

That's not a surprise, not to me. I view these sorts of questions as times I can find out if my logic holds water. If it doesn't, I can patch it or discard it, as needed.

These are good thought exercises for me, at the very least.

There are other variants of god in existence... including the one that created everything (such as via a Big Bang) and sodded off and left everything to fend for itself.

The majority of people who frequent this board tend to have religious beliefs best represented by the Judeo-Christian style belief systems. As a result, I wanted to head off those arguments before opening up this one.

So, fewer assumptions than you think. Part of why I asked people to debunk that one first if that was their belief system.

Massive jumps in assumptions there!

As Flyn pointed out, this presumes you have no place for a soul!

Hmm, it does remove a possibility of a soul. Then again, I'm not certain I believe in such a thing. So, let's modify it a bit:

Anything that exists in this universe is affected by other things that exist in this universe. If the soul exists and is part of this universe, then it functions according to the laws of the way this universe functions. As a result, it, too, will be incapable of acting independently of everything else, which means that it, too, cannot have free will.

Alternatively, the soul exists, but is not a part of this universe, but still manages to maintain a connection of some sort to the body in this universe. That connection, then, is subject to these same laws, which removes at least some capacity for free will, if not all of it (since the soul cannot override the laws of the universe unless it, too, is god).

Of course, that relies on the existence of a soul which is not actually in this universe. Once you will make that sort of assumption, you might as well start calling the tooth fairy and Santa Claus too, true, since they could exist outside this universe and just interact with it through mystical and unprovable connection, thereby granting money for teeth and toys for good girls and boys.

There's a philosopher out there (forgot his name) who came up with the idea of 'qualia' to explain 'redness' (as an example). 'Red' is a frequency of light. 'Redness' is our perception of it. It's not just that our rods and cones detect that frequency (yep - I know it's only 1 of them... not bothered with researching tonight...). But that doesn't say anything about how we actually 'experience' that red. There's a quality to 'red' that just doesn't get said by saying 220 Hz (or so...). This quality he called 'qualia', and it's non-physical.

Thought of that, actually, a long time ago. Getting true telepathy would make for some fascinating insights into human perception, I think. However, all of those perceptions are still going to be governed by the laws of this universe. This means that your perception of red will still be dictated by the way that subatomic particles and waves interact within your eyes, resulting in the creation of various electrical signals in your brain, which finally results in the programming that exists in your brain stating "I see red now".

The "qualia" is a useful concept, and I'm glad for the word. But I don't really see how it affects my fundamental statement that we have no free will. Our own unique perceptions don't actually get altered by it. If anything, our choices are directed by the qualia of our perceptions, which tends to reinforce the lack of free will concept, at least to me.

Umm - done... (sorry if it comes off crappy.. I did a 9 /2 hour shift today, and back here at work tonight for another 8 hrs).

What? You only did 17 1/2 hours over a day and a half, and you dare to whine and give a half-assed answer? What a slacker :p

Slytovhand

10-03-2008, 05:46 PM

couple of things come to mind... as I read this while also supposed to be working :p

A) - fair enough about limiting to J-C religions... makes life easier :p But... it does then halt a stack of argument, which is not exactly relevant to the discussion. The debate is on free-will in general, not free will in a Judeo-Christianic universe.

B) - you sort of assume you understand how the universe actually works with all of it's laws. Is it not possible that there are things 'outside' this universe that cannot be directly affected by it, but are able to affect things 'inside' it??

C) - qualia wasn't about free will - it was about a non-physical mind. And if there is a non-physical mind, it affects the assumptions based on the brain and thoughts.

D) - well, since I was awake a 5am or so yesterday, and it's now 3:45am... that 17 1/2 hours is more over 1 day (granted, crossing 2 days... only had about 5 hours between 1 job and the other... oh - didn't throw in the 2 hours stuck in peak hour traffic!!!! Not happy, Jan!

Pedersen

10-03-2008, 06:11 PM

couple of things come to mind... as I read this while also supposed to be working :p

And slacking off more at work. With only 17.5 hours in 24. Man, such a whiner! :)

A) - fair enough about limiting to J-C religions... makes life easier :p But... it does then halt a stack of argument, which is not exactly relevant to the discussion. The debate is on free-will in general, not free will in a Judeo-Christianic universe.

Ah, somewhere I've miscommunicated. I'm pointing out the critical logic failure thread for anybody who tries to use the "I have free will because God says I do". If your religion does not have that particular failure, I'd be delighted to hear about it, and debate the existence of free will. Just be prepared for me to use the secular world in my side of the debate.

B) - you sort of assume you understand how the universe actually works with all of it's laws. Is it not possible that there are things 'outside' this universe that cannot be directly affected by it, but are able to affect things 'inside' it??

No, I do not assume to know the laws, except to know that they exist, and that anything inside this universe is subject to them. The exact nature of those laws is not, actually, important or interesting (with one possible exception I will mention in a moment), simply because the laws govern the interaction of everything in the universe. Therefore, if we are things that exist in this universe, we are subject to the laws of this universe.

If there is a component that exists outside of this universe, then that component exists under one of two conditions:

1. That component is not in any way bound by the laws of this universe in how it interacts with other members of this universe. This gives it the ability to break various physical laws at will. By any definition I am aware of, this results in that component being, on some level, a god.

2. That component is bound, at least in part, by the laws of this universe. This removes its ability to act independently of this universe, which also necessitates the lack of free will.

Oh, that exception I mentioned? If there is a law that states something similar to "The other laws are upheld except for the conditions in a human brain, in which case anything that happens there can happen independently of the rest of the universe." The existence of such a law would seem to be disproven by the fact that head trauma can cause severe personality changes.

C) - qualia wasn't about free will - it was about a non-physical mind. And if there is a non-physical mind, it affects the assumptions based on the brain and thoughts.

Not so much, really. In part because I'm stating that I don't believe in the existence of a non-physical mind. All of the evidence I've seen in this world points to the mind being a purely physical entity.

Consider the personality changes that can come from severe head trauma or various medications (both legal and illegal).Consider that some drugs can be used to control behavior, even to the point of preventing it (for instance, OCD can sometimes be controlled with medication, as can depression, bi-polar disorder, the list goes on). If the mind has a non-physical component, shouldn't those drugs fail to affect it?

D) - well, since I was awake a 5am or so yesterday, and it's now 3:45am... that 17 1/2 hours is more over 1 day (granted, crossing 2 days... only had about 5 hours between 1 job and the other... oh - didn't throw in the 2 hours stuck in peak hour traffic!!!! Not happy, Jan!

Bah. You make it sound like you're having to do too much work. Personally, I think you're just whinging, and need to get back to work! :) (we really need a tongue in cheek icon here somewhere)

Slytovhand

10-03-2008, 06:29 PM

Personally, I think you're just whinging,
yeah - but I'm a nice guy...:p

Kusanagi

11-06-2008, 06:07 PM

From a religious standpoint -

God or gods may know what I'm going to do before I do it, but I do not, therefore I have free will.

From a non religious standpoint -

Two people in identical circumstances can make different choices. How many times have you made up your mind on a spur of the moment decision that shocks even you? Therefore, I have free will.

Pedersen

11-06-2008, 06:26 PM

God or gods may know what I'm going to do before I do it, but I do not, therefore I have free will.

Which quite neatly ignores the entire rest of the argument. The individual's ignorance of future choices is irrelevant when the choices are forced upon you by an outside force. I've gone over it lots in this thread, and request that you re-read what I've said.

If God is omnipotent, omniscient, and the all-creator, then we cannot have free will, no matter how much we would like to believe otherwise.

Two people in identical circumstances can make different choices. How many times have you made up your mind on a spur of the moment decision that shocks even you? Therefore, I have free will.

Except for a couple of minor details:

It is not possible for two people to be in precisely identical circumstances (subatomic version). We are each composed of many particles, each of which combines to produce larger and larger structures until we see human beings. Each of those particles is capable of moving in a different way. Furthermore, we exist on a ball of particles that is moving through space at high speed. The long and the short of this is that, in order two people to be in precisely identical circumstances, the matter that composes these two people would have to occupy the same points in space time, and furthermore, they would have to doing the exact same things (moving in the exact same directions, at the exact same speeds, etc).

Ergo, it is not possible for two people to be in precisely identical circumstances. That covers the subatomic version of it.
It is not possible for two people to be in precisely identical circumstances (non-subatomic version). Two people have unique experiences while growing up. Even twins, raised in the same household, will have their own experiences while growing up. These subtle variations during this time can have long ranging impacts on future decisions.

This results in different interpretations of the same circumstances, which can result in radically different resulting actions. If they were in identical circumstances, they would have had identical backgrounds (which we have already established is impossible), and this would result in the same decisions being made.
Your statement about making decisions that surprise myself is true. I've done it, and I know others have as well. However, this only lends credence to the lack of free will arguments. After all, if you have free will, then all decisions would be made and understood by you. You would know why you chose to do something. Instead, many people do not know the source of their actions, they just do them.

All of that combines to say: Free will does not exist.

I want to be proven wrong, I really do. But these arguments don't do it.

Kusanagi

11-06-2008, 09:04 PM

From the religious aspect, it doesn't ignore anything. I have read the other threads you posted, and there have been plenty of biblical and theological scholars that have debated this point. As your beliefs are yours and my beliefs are mine. I am Christian, so I would be describing this from a Biblical standpoint. I do not know enough about the beliefs of other religions well enough to be able to make an arguement based on their own belief systems, however.

1) God is Omnipotent
2) God is Onmipresent
3) God is Omniscient

The main points of your argument are this:
God knows what we're going to do before we do it, therefore we don't have free will.
If God DOESN'T know what we're going to do before we do it, he is not omnisceint and therefore, not God.

These would be true, unless of course you assume that God is no longer maintaining and active role in His creation (a point I can't believe nobody brought up.)

People claim acts of God all the time which may or may not be chance, as it's up to individuals to decide for themselves. There are definately a few events in my own life that fit that category. However, from a Biblical perspective, with the exception of a few instances listed in the Bible, the last "hands-on" approach that would have drastically altered His creation would have been the Flood and there will not be another until Revelations occurs.

That's the strictly Biblical view on it, which opens up a while new series of debate outsite the scope of this discussion.

If God has adopted a hands-off approach and let his creation and all within it proceed naturally, (which would coincide with Theistic Evolution) free will DOES exist because God is letting things run the course. Even if he knows what's going to happen before it happens, it doesn't mean that he is directly influencing our own decisions on the level that most free will dissidents believe.

I will concede that this falls into the "illusion" of free will concept, but once again, using religious methods, the existance of free will cannot be proven or disproven.

However, you must acknowledge if you accept the idea of God or gods, they by their nature would have processes that defy logic and would forever be beyond human understanding. This is where the faith element comes into play, and this is common across ALL religions, not just Christianity. His answer to the free will question may just be beyond the understanding until such a time as He decides to reveal it to us, if ever.

As for the scientific parts of your arguement, all three do just as much to prove the existance of free will as it does to prove the case against it.

At the current time, there is no way to scientifically prove or disprove the existance of free will because the idea of free will being part of a programming ingrained in our minds, therefore making it predictible, is only a theory and not one that will be proven in our lifetimes. Now, this may change in the future as computing power and scientific processes become more defined, but this will not happen until the first true AI is concieved, if that ever happens.

Due to the laws of scientific method, the arguements you give in those points are not indicative of the lack of free will because it is a principal that cannot be tested. You will never be able to duplicate a single set of circumstances at an atomic level, or any other level for that matter. Once again, in the future this may change, but only after leaps in advancement in artificial intelligence and modelling using quantum mechanics that make the Genome project look like a kindergarden cutout. In short far beyond what will be achieved while we are alive.

Since the scientific method cannot be used to prove or disprove free will in this case, as of this point in time it's a matter of opinion wether it exists or not. You have stated that you believe free will doesn't exist. I have stated I believe it does. Looking at religious arguements and scientific ones, we both see evidence for our lines of thinking.

Wether it's the result of God influencing me to have Taco Bell for lunch or a system of eons that have shaped my thought process to be craving a Volcano Taco right now, to me it doesn't matter.

Except I'm hungry. :)

Pedersen

11-06-2008, 09:29 PM

From the religious aspect, it doesn't ignore anything.

Actually, you are ignoring the very definitions of the words being chosen. I have covered this particular topic over in this thread (http://www.fratching.com/showthread.php?t=679).

I'd love for those points to be refuted. They haven't been. And simply stating

These would be true, unless of course you assume that God is no longer maintaining and active role in His creation (a point I can't believe nobody brought up.)

or:

If God has adopted a hands-off approach and let his creation and all within it proceed naturally, (which would coincide with Theistic Evolution) free will DOES exist because God is letting things run the course. Even if he knows what's going to happen before it happens, it doesn't mean that he is directly influencing our own decisions on the level that most free will dissidents believe.

does not refute the points I made over there. Even better:

However, you must acknowledge if you accept the idea of God or gods, they by their nature would have processes that defy logic and would forever be beyond human understanding.

That simply goes for the "mysterious ways" argument. Go see the other thread (http://www.fratching.com/showthread.php?t=679) for my own debunking of it. Again, refute my points. I'll be glad to accept an actual refutation. But "mysterious ways" is a cop out for "I'm trying to defend the indefensible, and I know it, so I'll just claim that God has the answer."

As for the scientific parts of your arguement, all three do just as much to prove the existance of free will as it does to prove the case against it.

Ah, very well, let me provide some actual research for you to ponder: URL=http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB121450609076407973.html]The brain reaches a decision up to 10 seconds before our consciousness becomes aware of it.[/URL] For starters. And that's the first one I could remember. More research is coming out right now that backs up the notion that free will is non-existant. If you'd like, I'll find more.

Wether it's the result of God influencing me to have Taco Bell for lunch or a system of eons that have shaped my thought process to be craving a Volcano Taco right now, to me it doesn't matter.

Except I'm hungry. :)

Man, for that alone I'd be pissed at whatever god there might be. Then again, I really don't like Taco Bell food :)

Slytovhand

11-08-2008, 03:32 PM

hmmm.... we're back to this argument again.... Sorry - I should have responded earlier.

I've got to agree with Pedersen on some of the arguments presented. "God's maintaining an active role" doesn't come into it at all. God is either omniscient, or not. It is Pedersen's argument that omniscience runs contrary to free will, as if it's known, there is no way out of it. Doesn't matter if he's hanging around and actively involved in the running of the universe or not. I'd actually say, that if God was taking an active role in the universe still, it would indicate a lack of omniscience, and gives more credence to free will (otherwise - why intervene???)

Now, Pedersen..."mysterious ways"... bleh! What's wrong with "God does stuff that we'll never understand"??? Makes perfect sense to me! After all, that's pretty much part of the definition of divinity, isn't it??? So, saying it's a cop-out is just as much a cop-out if you can't prove it!

Also, AI will never prove free-will (or lack thereof). Why would it?? Just because you can point to specific programming or electronic processes, doesn't automatically mean you've found freewill (or it's lack). That would be assuming that 'free-will' is a physical thing (back to what is the 'mind' argument).

I haven't tried Taco Bell.... (next thread - does the Devil truly exist? :p)

Pedersen

11-08-2008, 04:09 PM

Now, Pedersen..."mysterious ways"... bleh! What's wrong with "God does stuff that we'll never understand"??? Makes perfect sense to me! After all, that's pretty much part of the definition of divinity, isn't it??? So, saying it's a cop-out is just as much a cop-out if you can't prove it!

Nothing's wrong with it per se, until it becomes used as a cop-out. Saying "Using the words we've made up as a people makes illogical things happen, but I still believe those illogical things. Therefore, it's God moving in mysterious ways" is a total cop-out.

Saying "I do believe in God, and I believe God has a plan. I don't understand that plan, though. Therefore, God moves in mysterious ways" is markedly different.

One indicates issues with logic, and the other indicates statements of belief. Hence, my cop-out remarks.

Slytovhand

11-08-2008, 04:20 PM

OH... OK..... :p

DrT

11-13-2008, 08:20 PM

I'll put out my answer: I do not believe free will exists. Basically, to steal a phrase from Scott Adams, we are all "moist robots". We have very sophisticated organic chemistry which manages to use some sort of reasoning process to lead us to make decisions. However, make no mistake: That reasoning process is part of the programming we are following.

Well, lesse if I can go against the moist robot argument:
- you infer we are following a programming. Who programmed it? ie: who made the neuronal pathways that we will follow to arrive at a decision.
They weren't made before we were concieved. Two twins (ie: same genetic makup, same deck of card to start with) will have different though processes. If the programming (neuronal pathway) was not made before we were concieved, then it's after. What has influence on these pathways? The pathways themselves (us, our senses, etc). Outside influence is coded through our perception of it, hence our pathways. These pathways can ignore this or that signal from the outside, because they were formed that way, by themselves.
We made ourselves.

How? By our own decisions. Consciously or not, we made them.

If we made ourselves, through decisions that did not involve any outside influence, we have free will.

-Plasticity: our mind is plastic. The neuronal pathways in our brain are not set. It is felt as a change of mind, and it is the fruit of a feedback loop in our brain which can alter the decision process because of outside parameters, but more importantly BY ITSELF.
No, I won't dig the paper out of the net. I probably don't suscribe to the journals they are published in.

But here's an example: Pavlov's dog.
1- a dog in a cage. A sound is made (S), shortly after food is brough (F). In response to food, the dog salivates (SL). Completely unconscious reaction (this is important, because you take away the possibility of the subject faking it).
S -> F -> SL
2- after a few times, a sound is made, and salivation happens. without the food. Dog learned that sounds means food, so he cut the middle man
S -> SL.

So far the robot hypothesis holds. One can program such as learning algorythm.

Now, continue the experiment:
3- after a while, as the sound is emitted but the food keeps on not showing, salivation stops.
How?
Well, the neuronal pathways dissociated the food from the sound, so solivation didn't happen.
So, who did the reprogramming? Itself. The neuronal pathway is able to change, by itself.

Now that does attack the robot hypothesis, but one can still say that the brain is programmed to ignore the sound if after a given time the food doesn't come.

Then, take two dogs.
Twins. Lived in identical cages their whole life. Same environment. Same feeding time. Everything.
repeat experiment. Measure the time it takes for them to dissociate sound from food (ie: stop salivating in response to sound).

It won't be the same lengh of time.

Why? How can their programming be different is the outside influence was identical? Look inside. Throughout their lives, their pathways got programmed differently as they took different decisions, consciously or not.

If I can reprogram myself, don't I have free will?

Pedersen

11-13-2008, 08:50 PM

Who programmed it? ie: who made the neuronal pathways that we will follow to arrive at a decision.
They weren't made before we were concieved. Two twins (ie: same genetic makup, same deck of card to start with) will have different though processes. If the programming (neuronal pathway) was not made before we were concieved, then it's after.

And it's before we actually have our first thoughts. In order for our brain to have a thought, the brain must exist. In order for the brain to exist, the first neural pathways must already be laid down. So, no, we don't make ourselves. Biology makes us. And biology is what makes our decisions for us.

-Plasticity: our mind is plastic. The neuronal pathways in our brain are not set.

You are correct. Computer programs have a similar concept available to them called a "neural net", which strengthens some pathways and weakens others. I doubt you're saying that those programs have free will, though.

Then, take two dogs.
Twins.

Which neatly ignores one little fact: Identical twins are not identical at the genetic level (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/health/11real.html).

Why? How can their programming be different is the outside influence was identical? Look inside.

Look very far inside. They wound up having different perceptions of the same experiences because at a cellular level they are different. Their neural pathways were formed differently from the beginning. This resulted in them experiencing identical events in a different fashion, which results in them being individuals that act differently to the same stimulus.

If I can reprogram myself, don't I have free will?

Unfortunately, no. Not unless computers which use neural networks and thus change their behavior in response to differing inputs are classified as having free will.

DrT

11-13-2008, 09:40 PM

And it's before we actually have our first thoughts. In order for our brain to have a thought, the brain must exist. In order for the brain to exist, the first neural pathways must already be laid down. So, no, we don't make ourselves. Biology makes us. And biology is what makes our decisions for us.

Woa.
biology makes the decision for us ? Biology is the science of the living. How can that make decisions?
don't drop words like that, would ya ? ;)
But you refer to the biological programming, hence the neuronal network. see below.

Which neatly ignores one little fact: Identical twins are not identical at the genetic level (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/health/11real.html).

Nah, I dismiss a little study done on a little sample of humans that got published in a little journal
I'm talking experimental animals, genetically identical.

Look very far inside. They wound up having different perceptions of the same experiences because at a cellular level they are different. Their neural pathways were formed differently from the beginning. This resulted in them experiencing identical events in a different fashion, which results in them being individuals that act differently to the same stimulus.

I agree: their neuronal pathways are different, because they formed differently. you infer that this change was done by an outside influence. I'm saying this changes comes from within, idenpendantly of outside influence.

Unfortunately, no. Not unless computers which use neural networks and thus change their behavior in response to differing inputs are classified as having free will.
Computer neuronal network do not have an automatic feedback loop. they do not question their decisions without an outside input making them question it.

Humans, and high animals, are wired in such a way that the decision is questionned whether or not outside inputs changed.

Now, let's face it Pedersen: neither you nor I know how the brain works.
Not a scientist in the world does.
You are basing your absence of free will theory on the assumtion that the brain is a data processing machine which workings can be defined and set.
This is not the case.
It processes data, but the output is not predictable (as I said, two identical subjects will not reprogram themselves at the same speed). there's always a variation, that remains unexplained.

Through the same fact, though, my opinion cannot be proved. I personnaly tend to believe that the plasticity of the brain lies within: the neurons in a network can reinvent themselves. one neuronal network will question the relevance of another, which in turn can question the first. This loop is inside, and gives us free will.

Pedersen

11-13-2008, 10:09 PM

biology makes the decision for us ? Biology is the science of the living. How can that make decisions?

define:biology (http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Abiology): characteristic life processes and phenomena of living organisms; "the biology of viruses"

So, yes, biology makes the choices.

Nah, I dismiss a little study done on a little sample of humans that got published in a little journal
I'm talking experimental animals, genetically identical.

Unfortunately, genetically identical in a multicellular organism is impossible for a number of reasons.

First, cell death. We are unable to control when individual cells die in an organism. As a result, two animals which are clones of each other will have different cellular life/death cycles. This will result in small, subtle differences throughout the body. These small differences can easily result in changes in the neural pathways of the brain. For these purposes, I'm only discussing post birth.

Second, pre birth: The cellular division can (and will) result in differences that we cannot see, and sometimes that we can see, even in cloned animals.

It is impossible to have a pair of multicellular organisms be completely identical.

However, let us assume (for the sake of argument) that it actually is possible. That, somehow, we have two genuinely identical dogs. If such is possible, and if the dogs have been identical since birth, and if the dogs have had 100% identical experiences throughout their lives (none of which is actually possible, but for the sake of argument we will assume it is), if everything about these dogs lives and physical makeup is actually genuinely identical, then they will respond identically to the same input.

Try it from a different angle: By our understandings, the brain is responsible for decision making. Any decision that occurs is solely subject to the brain. As a result, if we have two genuinely identical brains, and give them the same criteria for a decision, then the electrical impulses that we eventually perceive to be a decision will follow the same pathways and provide the same result. Unless, of course, you are stating that the free will portion of the brain actually exists outside the brain? And, if so, I have to ask: Does it float nearby, or does it go off on its own on occasion?

Computer neuronal network do not have an automatic feedback loop. they do not question their decisions without an outside input making them question it.

Neural Networks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_network): Unsupervised learning In unsupervised learning we are given some data x, and a cost function which is to be minimized which can be any function of x and the network's output, f. The cost function is determined by the task formulation. Most applications fall within the domain of estimation problems such as statistical modeling, compression, filtering, blind source separation and clustering.

Whether or not they have automated feedback loops depends on how they are built.

Now, let's face it Pedersen: neither you nor I know how the brain works.
Not a scientist in the world does.

Actually, a great deal is known about the function of the brain. Not all of it is known, but a lot of it is. And the more we learn, the more it looks like the brain is very much just a very powerful neural network.

DrT

11-14-2008, 06:09 AM

So, yes, biology makes the choices.

calling it biology gives the illusion of an outside entity. it's like saying the computer doesn't do the calculation, electronic does.

Unfortunately, genetically identical in a multicellular organism is impossible for a number of reasons.

it doesn't change my argument, so let's put this aside for now

However, let us assume (for the sake of argument) that it actually is possible. That, somehow, we have two genuinely identical dogs. If such is possible, and if the dogs have been identical since birth, and if the dogs have had 100% identical experiences throughout their lives (none of which is actually possible, but for the sake of argument we will assume it is), if everything about these dogs lives and physical makeup is actually genuinely identical, then they will respond identically to the same input.

That is your assumption. You will not be able to prove it, neither will I be able to prove the opposite to its full extend.
There is not room in your reasoning for randomness. I'll bring that up later.

Try it from a different angle: By our understandings, the brain is responsible for decision making. Any decision that occurs is solely subject to the brain. as a result, if we have two genuinely identical brains, and give them the same criteria for a decision, then the electrical impulses that we eventually perceive to be a decision will follow the same pathways and provide the same result. Unless, of course, you are stating that the free will portion of the brain actually exists outside the brain? And, if so, I have to ask: Does it float nearby, or does it go off on its own on occasion?

you're oversimplifying the workings of a brain, and thus missing the aspect that actually governs the free decision.

Let's look at decision making as a network of interacting neural loops, talking to each other.
That's you, weighing the several possibility for your actions.

One neural loop will finally take over and you'll make a choice.
You tell me that this taking over can be predestined, I will infer it cannot.

1-these are not 2 loops, or 10, but millions. They are all subjected to random impulses from other parts of the neural system, and in a body they are also subjected to signals from the endocrine system (blood). Thus one need to account for random change in the networks.
Unless you can predict randomness (and I invite you to Vega), then you can't predict the decision that will be taken.

2-one good example to back up my randomness argument: inovation.
how, in a network that is set, can you have innovation. We are talking today through a medium that was absolutely uninimaginable 50 years ago. How can it be possible, in a set neural network kind of life ?
These are random inputs. Whether or not the neural network accepts, dismisses, builds on these random inputs give it free will.

Actually, a great deal is known about the function of the brain. Not all of it is known, but a lot of it is. And the more we learn, the more it looks like the brain is very much just a very powerful neural network.

Wrong.
A great deal is known about neurons.
Network of neurons ? well, no.
Check the work done in Australia on the 'rat brain'. This actually a bunch of rat neurons in a petri dish, that can somewhat learn (at least within the definition of the experiment). The scientists in charge of that experiment, and their competitors, will not be able to explain to your how it learns.
They can tell you how to make it learn faster or slower, maybe. but giving you a model of exactly how ? No.
Neither can they predestine the decision making of that bunch of cells, because they can't predict random impulses.

So if they can't figure out cells in a flat petri dish, they're clueless in front of a highly hierarchic, fractal, neural network like the brain.

Slytovhand

11-14-2008, 03:39 PM

Why are we talking 'biology' (or not, as the case may be?? :p)

I thought the argument was theological? (or was that the other thread??)

Either way, doesn't it go deeper than mere neurons? Down to actual atomic and subatomic particles and waves... stuff that isn't random?

And no, DrT, I don't agree with the use of the word 'random'... unexplained. Unpredictable to current sciences. etc. But truly random.. nope - don't buy that! Not when, our wonderful little bunch of scientists are able to calculate so much with physics out there in the stars (or, at least, getting closer and closer to calculating).

The only thing (at the moment) that is considered 'random' is at the level of quantum mechanics... and even that they're thinking it isn't truly random - but follows rules and laws we haven't ascertained yet.

Question - was the state of the universe (size, shape, duration, etc) determined before the Big Bang?

Answer that, and you get closer to the 'Free Will' argument.

DrT

11-14-2008, 04:55 PM

Why are we talking 'biology' (or not, as the case may be?? :p)

because it went there

Either way, doesn't it go deeper than mere neurons? Down to actual atomic and subatomic particles and waves... stuff that isn't random?

did you just say that subatomic particles and waves are not random ? light is a particle AND a wave, but can't be both at the same time. When is it one or the other ? when it suits the observer.

position of electrons are not set. We know the areas where they PROBABLY are, within a certain interval of confidence...

And no, DrT, I don't agree with the use of the word 'random'... unexplained. Unpredictable to current sciences. etc. But truly random.. nope - don't buy that! Not when, our wonderful little bunch of scientists are able to calculate so much with physics out there in the stars (or, at least, getting closer and closer to calculating).
The only thing (at the moment) that is considered 'random' is at the level of quantum mechanics... and even that they're thinking it isn't truly random - but follows rules and laws we haven't ascertained yet.

Well, no actually.

very soon as you start doing physics to a certain level, you multiply assumptions, and work on proability, interval of confidence, etc. Random is put aside and encased into these, and ignored otherwise nothing would get done.

even engineers talk in 'interval of confidence'. you won't find one that will tell you: there's a hundred percent chance this bridge will hold. They'll tell you that it's safe within the safest marging or error.
there's always a random chance than, well, it will fall and they won't know why.

I'll stand with my random, thank you very much ;p

Pedersen

11-14-2008, 05:17 PM

because it went there

Indeed it did. And I didn't go far enough, my bad. I think XKCD (http://www.xkcd.com/435/) describes it extremely well.

did you just say that subatomic particles and waves are not random ? light is a particle AND a wave, but can't be both at the same time. When is it one or the other ? when it suits the observer.

Actually, from research that I've read, the general opinion is leaning towards them not being random. Rather, what appears to be random is controlled by mechanisms we do not yet understand. That is a very far cry from random.

position of electrons are not set. We know the areas where they PROBABLY are, within a certain interval of confidence...

This is due to limitations in the devices that can measure these things, not due to inherent randomness in their position.

even engineers talk in 'interval of confidence'. you won't find one that will tell you: there's a hundred percent chance this bridge will hold. They'll tell you that it's safe within the safest marging or error.
there's always a random chance than, well, it will fall and they won't know why.

This confuses "random" with "we don't know". They are, most definitely, not the same thing. Consider, for example, a plane crash. At the time of the crash, we don't know the root cause of it. For all intents and purposes, it might as well be random. It's only after investigation that we are able to find out the cause, and only then that we discover that it wasn't random.

I'll stand with my random, thank you very much ;p

You're more than welcome to be as wrong as you wish :)

Seriously, though, more and more research is showing that less and less is actually random. Although, here's something else for you to ponder:

Since randomness is the source of free will, doesn't that mean that free will itself is random? And doesn't that mean that, instead of free willed beings, or programmed automatons, that we are just randomly moving through our lives, bouncing off one another?

Slytovhand

11-14-2008, 05:23 PM

Edit: was typing up when Ped posted....

Ah.. but that's still working on a human 21st century understanding of things... which is where the whole argument about free will came in the first time (which is why we've conveniently bypassed anything esoteric).

If you were 'God', would you know the exact position and speed of those subatomic particles? How about how light actually works?? That's the sort of level of predictability we're looking at - and why. Not so much can we determine it, but is it knowable.

So - sure, your engineers may not know why - but that doesn't mean there isn't a reason for it.. and that reason is ascertainable.

DrT

11-14-2008, 05:32 PM

This confuses "random" with "we don't know". They are, most definitely, not the same thing. Consider, for example, a plane crash. At the time of the crash, we don't know the root cause of it. For all intents and purposes, it might as well be random. It's only after investigation that we are able to find out the cause, and only then that we discover that it wasn't random.

random: cannot be predicted.

you may want to assume that everything can be put into mathematical equations and predicted. But do not forget: these math your are using will be based on assumptions.

there is always a marging of error in science. Those ignoring it paid enough of a price for it.

Since randomness is the source of free will, doesn't that mean that free will itself is random? And doesn't that mean that, instead of free willed beings, or programmed automatons, that we are just randomly moving through our lives, bouncing off one another?

you want me to disagree with the randomness of life ?
I won't. A great many unfathomable things happened in my life for me to disagree with that.

we are free willed being moving randomly through our lives. Able to steer our boats on the river of life to a certain extend, but never really able to take it exactly where we want to.

Flyndaran

11-15-2008, 06:16 PM

I'm a rationalist atheist. To assume free will is to assume an outside force able to direct, but not be affected by, this reality.
I am, mostly, my brain, a physical object that took its programming from biology and environment.
I would like to believe in free will, but I would also like to believe in an afterlife, fairies, and magic. No evidence for any of them.

Slytovhand

11-16-2008, 12:32 PM

Interesting view there, Flyn..esp that free will assumes an outside force....

Also - yes, there is actual evidence for those other 3 things you mentioned - but evidence alone doesn't convict.

Flyndaran

11-16-2008, 06:11 PM

Interesting view there, Flyn..esp that free will assumes an outside force....

Also - yes, there is actual evidence for those other 3 things you mentioned - but evidence alone doesn't convict.

Aside from whatever you consider evidence rather than anectdotes...

What do you consider free will? What stops me from bludgeoning my girlfriend? I would say it's my biology and upbringing making it a non-issue. I'm inherently a non-violent person and was raised in a manner to enforce that nature.
Do you see free will as the ability to analyse a situation and make informed decisions based on one's priorities and limitations? I see that as the very definition of intelligence that every animal uses to the best of its ability.

I think a definition would clear up quite a bit of confusion I'm having with everyone's counter arguments for free will.

Slytovhand

11-16-2008, 06:35 PM

A definition... yes, probably a good idea... Ped????

Don't get me wrong, I have a belief in free will, it's just that Pedersen doesn't like my reasoning, so I'm keeping my arguments in this material universe... (unles otherwise dictated - eg 'qualia').

DrT

11-20-2008, 12:15 PM

I think a definition would clear up quite a bit of confusion I'm having with everyone's counter arguments for free will.

Hit the nail on the head there.
And looking at the wikipedia page, I think we're in for the long haul. :rolleyes:

Me I tend to believe that the only thing keeping me from doing any action (material considerations aside) is myself. And since I can change my mind at will, and even convince myself to make that change in mind, have lil debate and everything in me noggin, without any outside intervention, I have free will.

Simplistic, yes, but efficient.

Flyndaran

11-21-2008, 10:25 PM

Hit the nail on the head there.
And looking at the wikipedia page, I think we're in for the long haul. :rolleyes:

Me I tend to believe that the only thing keeping me from doing any action (material considerations aside) is myself. And since I can change my mind at will, and even convince myself to make that change in mind, have lil debate and everything in me noggin, without any outside intervention, I have free will.

Simplistic, yes, but efficient.

That assumes that your mind as it is today has nothing to do with your past. Unless you sprang fully formed from the ground, that assumption is incorrect.
You owe who you are, what you are, and how and what you think to your past environment, and genetics.
You say you choose to alter your plans. Your interpretation of the situation has no influence? Your ability to see a more beneficial action had no influence? Your childhood practice at forcing yourself to ignore the desires for immediate gratification for the greater benefit down the line had no infulence?

What made the choice? You and only you did? What is I made of? It is the illusion of sense of self that arises from the melding of numerous modules or parallel processors of the brain. This conglomeration is literally structured by your genetics and environment.

I like the illusion of free will just as much as anyone. But I like the illusion of a lot of things, that I still disbelieve based on the evidence at hand.

Not believing in an afterlife doesn't make me any less of the nice guy that I am. Not believing in free will doesn't make me any less human.

There's no evidence that either of these things exist, so, rationally, I have no basis for believing in them other than the simple wishing they were true.

DrT

11-24-2008, 09:19 AM

If we are the sum of our experiences, it doesn't mean the experiences take the decisions for us.
It's our take on these experiences, mixed in with a little emotional background at the time of decision, and maybe that little grain of randomness in ourselves that does this. And is that not me ?

As a matter of fact, you put it right: before defining the existence of free will, one definition lacks: the self.

What am I ?
I am the sum of my experience and my genetic background. I also include a undefined quality, which allows me to add different observations and experiences into more than the simple addition of their value: I can innovate. Create new out of nothing. This is what got me down from mu tree all the way to the front of this computer desk.
The inputs of my environment give the necessary data to take the decision, but the decisional machinery is within myself.

You're making the mistake of trying to compare the brain to a computer. But a computer can only process 0 and 1, yes or no. A human will tell you maybe. or 3. or 42. As long as the process for this random generation of unfathomable answers is not understood, that ability for man (or animal actually since they also act in unfathomable ways) to innovate, you won't have that evidence you think you're possessing.

Fact is: the evidence is far from being complete, yet you make conclusions based on it. This is the best way to get it wrong.

There's no evidence that either of these things exist, so, rationally, I have no basis for believing in them other than the simple wishing they were true.

You're making the mistake of seeing only half the problem:
There is no evidence that they don't exist, either.

Hence the rational answer is not to consider them unexistant, but to shelf the issue until further data is gathered ;)

Slytovhand

11-24-2008, 12:26 PM

Aren't you making just as big a pile of presumptions? It's easy to say that there are 'random' events happening, but as Ped has said a number of times, just because we don't understand the full mechanisms at this moment in time, doesn't mean that it is actually 'random' in the true sense of the word (rather than just 'unlikely' or 'less frequent' or even 'highly improbable'... or obviously 'not conforming to a set of regulated or defined patterns').

Let's face it, true 'random' is lotto balls (which, even then, isn't random anyway). And that's clearly not how the brain, or mind, works. We have input, and we have an ascertainable, logical output. Sometimes it comes up with some really weird stuff - but that's only in comparison to what we 'expect'. Since we can validly 'expect' something, then 'random' doesn't come into it...

Yes, we can compare the brain with a computer... maybe not the current generation of computers, but the analogy is still good. There are bits of wiring and all, and processors, and processes that follow logical flows. They both take input, grind through the metaphorical gears, and give output. That output isn't random, and our scientists are slowly getting to see exactly what paths are taken and how they interact. The lights go off, and the little needles wobble - and they can say that emotions get stimulated in the Hippocampus, while vision lights up the frontal lobe.

And sort of lastly... while you may use the term 'undefinable', for the purposes of this discussion, it needs definition...

DrT

11-24-2008, 01:01 PM

About as big a pile of presumption as you use, when comparing the brain with a computer. You simply take a big shortcut to say that the brain will be understood some day as a logical engine, I refuse to take that step. We are both weighing the argument with a ton of presumption as to the workings of the brain, no facts.

Taking your analogy with computer: what we know of the brain is like telling a savage that this tiny calulator will tell you the answer of 2+2 if you type it in, now look at this supercomputer (which is really just a pile of calculators, right?), see how the processor on the memory card warms up with I play this image, and this other area warm up while I play a sound, now tell me how it works.
The savage won't have a clue, so don't the scientists faced with the brain.

And regarding the human brain as a processing mechanism following the logical flow, tells that to a Vulcan.
This humorous parenthesis was aimed at the fact that neither of you can account for innovation, surprise, illogical behavior.

As I said above: can't prove it exists, can't prove it doesn't, simply because the facts are not sufficient to reach a viable conclusion. Until then you'll continue to think you don't have free will, I'll keep on saying I do, but neither of us will be proved right or wrong until that savage figures out how the computer works.

Slytovhand

11-24-2008, 01:19 PM

Question, DrT... are you equating the mind with the brain? I don't. The brain is in the physical universe, and as such, is forced to follow along physical principles. It's electro-chemical, so has to follow those little universal dictates.

True, our scientists don't understand how the brain works. That has nothing to do with the concept of free will. It doesn't matter if we understand or not. The universe isn't suddenly going to implode due to our lack of knowledge.

And I mean the brain as a 'logical' engine to say that it has neural pathways which 'information' (ie, electrical impulses) go down. Certain impulses will go down certain pathways at certain times. For it to work, the impulse must go down the entire pathway. It can't just stop halfway and the job's already done.

As for accounting for innovation, surprise or illogical behaviour - that actually falls back to "lack of evidence isn't proof against". In particular - I haven't tried to account for it. It's only been recently that it's been even suggested, as Pedersen and I have been looking at atomic and subatomic levels of explanation (or even non-physical.. but he won't budge on that :( ). So, if you really want an accounting, that I think we can do quite easily!

Btw.. who says I don't think we do have it??? I'm just throwing up arguments that Ped won't automatically invalidate :p

DrT

11-24-2008, 03:16 PM

Question, DrT... are you equating the mind with the brain? I don't. The brain is in the physical universe, and as such, is forced to follow along physical principles. It's electro-chemical, so has to follow those little universal dictates.

In my book, the brain/body complex (because separating one from the other is utter horsehikey) is the physical support for the mind.

True, our scientists don't understand how the brain works. That has nothing to do with the concept of free will. It doesn't matter if we understand or not. The universe isn't suddenly going to implode due to our lack of knowledge.

As a matter of fact is has everything to do with it. Since the brain/body complex is the support for the mind, and free will would be a function of said mind, not understanding the support means all definite conclusions drawn on free will are false on principle.

And I mean the brain as a 'logical' engine to say that it has neural pathways which 'information' (ie, electrical impulses) go down. Certain impulses will go down certain pathways at certain times. For it to work, the impulse must go down the entire pathway. It can't just stop halfway and the job's already done.

This simplification is the reason of the overt use of shortcuts in this discussion. As I metaphored above, it's like saying a supercomputer is a pile of calculators processing 2+2.
It's so much more complicated than that, it gets ridiculous to make inferences and definite conclusions.

As for accounting for innovation, surprise or illogical behaviour - that actually falls back to "lack of evidence isn't proof against". In particular - I haven't tried to account for it. It's only been recently that it's been even suggested, as Pedersen and I have been looking at atomic and subatomic levels of explanation (or even non-physical.. but he won't budge on that :( ). So, if you really want an accounting, that I think we can do quite easily!

No, you can't, since you'll again use over simplifications.
It will sounds very good, but you'll simply get into the working of the calculators, not the supercomputer. Worse, you will use data gathered that doesn't allow definite conclusions, put only the most likely explanations, as our dabbling on electrons and atoms showed.

The bottom line is that in light of the evidence gathered, no viable conclusion can be reached. More data needs to be input before the most likely answer can be drawn.

Don't take it wrong, I enjoy talking about this, but we both stand on a pile of presumptions drawn from partially understood phenomena, and truly the only other way out of this (besides walking away until further data is brough) is to add more presumptions on top of the pile so that we don't fall on our faces. :p

Pedersen

11-24-2008, 05:27 PM

A definition... yes, probably a good idea... Ped????

Free will is actually not that hard to define. Free will is the ability of a rational agent to exercise control over its actions and decisions. The question of whether or not we, as humans actually have that ability is the central point of my question.

Don't get me wrong, I have a belief in free will, it's just that Pedersen doesn't like my reasoning, so I'm keeping my arguments in this material universe... (unles otherwise dictated - eg 'qualia').

Slyt, I'm kinda disappointed, though I do understand what you're saying. Allow me to re-quote from my original post:

Critical Logic Failure (http://www.fratching.com/showthread.php?t=679): If your response is "I have free will because God says I do", then answer a couple quick questions: Is God omnipotent, omniscient, and the creator of everything? If so, there is a logical flaw in your argument that I address in this thread. Otherwise, I would enjoy hearing about your religion.

I did not attempt to restrict this one to the materal universe, though I'm sure I've come across that way. It's only when the argument comes from someone whose religions encompasses those descriptors that I want people to not bother in this thread.

Before letting you cheer and jump in, I'll tell you my summation of how I feel right now, and then let you explain to me why I'm wrong :)

I'm not sure I believe in the soul, or an equivalent by a different name. However, I will admit that it could exist. If so, and if the soul is the cause of us having free will, then in order for the soul to be immune from the physical laws of this universe it must exist outside of this universe. From this, we can observe that the soul must, somehow, be connected to the physical body in this universe. That connection must be (at least in part) a piece of this universe, and is therefore subject to the same physical laws this universe has. I think that, through now, we are likely to be in agreement.

Now, if that connection will be governed by the same physical laws, then any information passing through that connection will also be governed by the same physical laws. The soul would find itself limited in the same ways the body is, due to having to deal with our laws of existence. With the same limits, it would be incapable of exerting free will.

As a matter of fact, you put it right: before defining the existence of free will, one definition lacks: the self.

Actually, the very simple definition of free will (which I quoted from wikipedia, if that helps at all) has no requirement that we have a definition of self. As such, since that's the definition I'm going with (the simplest I can find, I might add), I'm not going to cover the concept of self. I find it to be redundant for this discussion.

The inputs of my environment give the necessary data to take the decision, but the decisional machinery is within myself.

And therein comes the fundamental question: The nature of that decisional machinery. Put all the fluff on top of it that you wish, but the final question is about the machinery itself. Is that machinery subject strictly to the laws of physics? If so, free will does not exist. If it is not, though, then free will is possible.

Now, by all appearances, you are clinging to the idea that behavior at the subatomic level that is currently called random is sufficient to show that free will must exist. For me, the interesting part is that, over the millenia, we have found that things once thought to be random are anything but. Here's a short list of things that once were thought to be random, or controlled by the gods, that we have now understood enough to know they are not random: rainstorms, droughts, tornadoes, hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and solar flares. There's lots more.

As human knowledge expands, we find, more and more, that what we thought was random is actually very controlled. We have yet to learn how to predict happenings at the subatomic level, so we call them random. Considering that everything else appears to be governed by strict laws which dictate what will happen next, it seems rather foolhardy to claim that this one area, and only this one area of study, is truly random. Nothing else is, why should that area of study be?

You're making the mistake of seeing only half the problem:
There is no evidence that they don't exist, either.

Hence the rational answer is not to consider them unexistant, but to shelf the issue until further data is gathered ;)

Unless you have a dragnet that is approximately 15 billion light years across and capable of catching objects down to the subatomic level, you will find it quite impossible to prove that something does not exist. Now, I have no proof that such a dragnet doesn't exist, but I can safely say that its characteristics make it extremely unlikely, with a level of certainty approaching that of mathematical proof. With that level of certainty, I will say that you don't have such a dragnet.

Of course, I could be wrong. But you will be the one claiming that such a net exists, and that you have it. It is now up to you to provide the proof.

True, our scientists don't understand how the brain works. That has nothing to do with the concept of free will. It doesn't matter if we understand or not. The universe isn't suddenly going to implode due to our lack of knowledge.

I had another discussion last night which went in a similar vein. We were debating whether or not someone could actually go past their limits. I still say no. And every time we think someone does go past their limits, it simply means we have failed to measure their limits accurately.

To explain using an analogy: Take a random glass from your kitchen. Fill it with water. Before you fill it, you don't know how much water can go into that glass. But you cannot put more water in than it can hold. That is its limit, its capacity. Just because you don't know the limit does not mean you are not governed by the limit.

Science is much the same way. We don't know everything about the universe, to be sure, but we are very much governed by the limits it places upon us.

This simplification is the reason of the overt use of shortcuts in this discussion. As I metaphored above, it's like saying a supercomputer is a pile of calculators processing 2+2.

Actually a supercomputer (regardless of the size), is even more basic than that it. It is nothing more than a pile of circuits which understand three things (at most): AND, NOT, OR. That's it. Absolutely everything that a computer does is boiled to those three operations. And it doesn't matter how big or how small the computer is. It just uses those three pieces.

The bottom line is that in light of the evidence gathered, no viable conclusion can be reached. More data needs to be input before the most likely answer can be drawn.

Actually, the evidence is being gathered that shows that free will does not exist. I'll repost a link to a study that shows the brain reaches a decision up to 10 seconds before our consciousness becomes aware of it. (http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB121450609076407973.html) Other studies are out there showing the same thing. The proof is growing that, however much we may not like it, we actually do not have free will.

Slytovhand

11-25-2008, 01:54 AM

DrT... yep, I agree with you that separating brain and body is utter.... horsehikey??? (yeah, ummm, ok.... :p Can we get a working defintion of 'horsehikey'?? :D) But, while there is support that the mind is in/part of/is the brain, that's all it is - support. I don't believe that's all there is to it, and I would suspect that there are many in the scientific (including neuroscience field) who would agree. Well, for that matter, I've seen them state this outright. Of course, that's just some.....

As a matter of fact is has everything to do with it. Since the brain/body complex is the support for the mind, and free will would be a function of said mind, not understanding the support means all definite conclusions drawn on free will are false on principle. How do you get this?? We don't understand something, thus all conclusions by definition must be false?? It's not possible that we can draw an accurate conclusion (especially in this case, because there are only 2 options - true or false) just by taking a particular stance on it??? Or are you emphasising the 'definite' bit in there? Does X version of God exist? There's a massive lot of people currently alive who are correct.. and will always be correct, no matter how much it can't be - and possibly never will be - proven.

Besides, once again, we're not talking about humans (per se), but the structure of the universe as a whole (with 'humans' and 'free will' being part of a sub-set. Sort of like we're discussion theology or philosophy, not neuroscience).

It may be an over-simplification (neurons firing being logical), but it's also true (yeah, ok, for any given value of 'true' :p). Yes, it massively more complicated than that, as a whole. But how did life start? A couple of molecules got together.... and kept having those get togethers... (which brings us back to 'free will'... I'll ask that in a tick..)

DrT, I'm curious as to what background you come from... psychology, psychiatry, neuorsci, or what? And thus, what grounds you argue here from. The 'innovation, etc' made me think of this. Oh, yes, of course I'll use over-simplifications... it's a fratching site, not American Journal of Science. Besides, I'm obviously not Professor X with a long list of letters after my name (well, not the "Professor X" bit ...). And I'm not sure that 'free will' would fall under any of those categories anyway... isn't it pure philosophy?

Sorry Pedersen... :cry:

But that Critical Logic Failure is theology... and doesn't help me a lot anyway.

But......in order for the soul to be immune from the physical laws of this universe it must exist outside of this universe. Why?? Ok, we need a definition of 'outside', and 'universe'. One that doesn't also mean 'multiverse' though. Let me ask a weird question.. how many dimensions does this universe have? After that, the following question is - do all 'laws' of the universe function fully in parts of the universe?

I personally believe in a soul/spirit. I also believe that time and space are not real issues for the soul - it can jump around to the when and where however it feels, thus not being subjected to the problems we have. Given those 'laws' (which, of course, may not be, and it just another thing we haven't worked out yet), it means that the soul would not be subject to them. But (and why I said that as I did, Ped), that just opens up a whole can of worms that's even harder to make assertions for. Given lack of evidence in the first place that qualifies as even 'proof' in a trial, what hope then to try and understand how it works??? I mean, if I can't convince you even of the first premise, how the hell am I going to get to number 2??

That connection must be (at least in part) a piece of this universe, and is therefore subject to the same physical laws this universe has...some of those same physical laws... or at least, what applies and what doesn't is already built into the basics.... we don't know what applies and what doesn't though... I'd say gravity isn't one of them. Electro-magnetics... thinking no again. (And, from that, if they aren't subject to those laws, but are able to influence them - sort of like ghosts being able to move things, yet can travel through walls - then perhaps they can move molecules in a brain..????)

The self?? Doesn't that just throw out my previous paragraph then??

Dragnets... and multiple universes and dimensions....

Oh - and back to brain vs free will... Pedersen, if the brain reaches it's decision 10 seconds before conscious awareness, and also if free will is defined as rational agent exercising control.... why do we sometimes do competely stupid things like 'randomly' bang our fist into our heads, and other sort of psychotic stuff like that?? Here, I'm getting into Jung and Freud etc, and all those things hidden away in the Sub-conscious - archetypes, and complexes and all of that psychiatric stuff.

Now - back to my ticks... life eventually evolved from a few molecules. We know this - it didn't have a lot of choice in the matter - cos before that there was only dust, space and energy. As it slowly evolved, it got more and more complex. On this planet, in recent history, a species evolved that seemed to be able to make decisions that were not merely based on stimulus/response mechanisms.

So, I will ask - at what point did 'free will' enter into the universe? Does it take a particular level of complexity? Was it always there, just waiting to be used? Can a sufficiently complex robot or android be said to have free will? Is it limited to particular neural pathways - or did that amoeba way back near the beginning have free will as well? Is it thus based only on the setup of chemicals and the like??

(ok, getting tired now, and a bit more incoherent :p want sleep - but shouldn't cos it throws out my patterns...)

DrT

11-25-2008, 07:46 AM

Actually, the evidence is being gathered that shows that free will does not exist. I'll repost a link to a study that shows the brain reaches a decision up to 10 seconds before our consciousness becomes aware of it. (http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB121450609076407973.html) Other studies are out there showing the same thing. The proof is growing that, however much we may not like it, we actually do not have free will.

This study show that subconsious is faster than consious, at least on easy and fast decisions....
Does that mean the decision takes place outside ourselves, though ? tis still my brain, ain't it ?

I don't need to think about moving each group of muscle when I walk either, or when I breathe. But I can stop. At will.
Whether or not hte idea of it is formed before it reaches my conscious mind doesn't change the fact that it's my idea. From myself.

Free will is actually not that hard to define. Free will is the ability of a rational agent to exercise control over its actions and decisions. The question of whether or not we, as humans actually have that ability is the central point of my question..

So since I having control over the actions of breathing, does that prove I have free will ?

It's funny how you seem to want to dissociate the brain/body complex from the self. You tell me that since the brain/body complex takes the decision before I know it, I don't have free will.
But that complex, it's me. Henceforth: I know I'm going to make that decision, but I'm not aware of it yet. I let the basic function of my brain take care of that, because it's so frigging boring.

Just like your bain can cut out sounds on its own, filter out inputs that were deemed irrelevant through the lense of experience
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habituation
It's likely it does the same things with decisions. Particularly when that decision is push a button or not. You'll be aware of the decision only when it will reache importance enouigh to be sent to the conscious part of yourself, but it's still you. Nothing outside of you.

It's just like this other enormity:

So, I will ask - at what point did 'free will' enter into the universe? Does it take a particular level of complexity? Was it always there, just waiting to be used? Can a sufficiently complex robot or android be said to have free will? Is it limited to particular neural pathways - or did that amoeba way back near the beginning have free will as well? Is it thus based only on the setup of chemicals and the like??

Free will, if it can be at all qualified, is a function. This question is about as meaningful as 'at what point did breathing come into the universe?'

If you take the definition of free will offered by Pederson (the ability of the self to influence its actions), then it's relatively easy to point out when this function was first seen: look at the animals and see which one was able to resist its instincts first.
That'll give you a brain complexicity threashold after which free will, in its simplest expression, can be found.

Now back to the basics, I spose:

And therein comes the fundamental question: The nature of that decisional machinery. Put all the fluff on top of it that you wish, but the final question is about the machinery itself. Is that machinery subject strictly to the laws of physics? If so, free will does not exist. If it is not, though, then free will is possible.
Really ?
Why ?
Because the laws of physics are accurate and thus will be able to accurately predict the workings of the machinery, ergo being able to predict the decision ?

well, a few points:
-the laws of physics are not accurate. That's why there's actually more than one set of them (quantic, relativity, chaos, etc). Each set is limited to a particular area of observation, which must be defined and accepted before using a particular set of physic. An again: they are accurate to a certain degree of error.
Look at the randomless events you point out:

that we have now understood enough to know they are not random: rainstorms, droughts, tornadoes, hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and solar flares. There's lots more.
Well, I think you have to share this certitude with a ton of people at several agencies, because there had been some major issues lately with these 'not random' events.
Fact is: they can be predicted within a certain degree of accuracy. Because we know of conditions which 'favors' their apparitions. That doesn't mean all of them are predicted, or that the predictions are correct. Hell, look at the discrepency between the weather report and real life, would you ? Then consider all these events of nature that are supposedly quantified and understood, and how often the prediction is wrong.

in this vein:
-decision making is at its simplest expression a loop: I am able to consider my decision before I take it (unless it's such an unimportant one that I let my lower brain take charge of that, but anyway it will do the same thing, I just won't be aware of it).
Can the time at which this loop will end (the decision is taken) be determined accurately, and if so what is the marging of error ?
This marging of error will add up, as the loops add up (ie: the decision becomes more complex and requiers more inputs to be considered).
At the end, you end up with infinity, ergo the decision cannot be predicted.

So indeed, you might be able to predict with a certain degree of accuracy (was it 70% in the paper you mentionned?) that I will push a buttun at a certain time.
Just like I can predict with a certain degree of accuracy that the next time you will walk, your muscles are going to move in a certain order.

That is, unless you wish it not to be so.

The laws of the universe are not accurate, Pedersen. They are approximations we use to better understand our environment and make the best of it.
ergo the statement:
"Is that machinery subject strictly to the laws of physics? If so, free will does not exist."
Is just another simplification based on inaccurate presumptions.

Pedersen

11-25-2008, 05:36 PM

But that Critical Logic Failure is theology... and doesn't help me a lot anyway.

Yep, and that's why I tried to point it out. To me, at least, that's a done debate. If someone wishes to tell me that God says they have free will, and that's why they do, then I'd be open to hearing it after they've read that thread. Pointing out the same thing 5 times over four threads gets tiresome, as I'm sure you will agree :)

But... Why?? Ok, we need a definition of 'outside', and 'universe'. One that doesn't also mean 'multiverse' though. Let me ask a weird question.. how many dimensions does this universe have? After that, the following question is - do all 'laws' of the universe function fully in parts of the universe?

The problem is: How do you define outside of something like the universe? I don't have a good way. What I can say is this: If you're inside this universe, you are going to have to play by the rules of this universe (commonly known as the laws of physics). Failure to abide by them would produce some interesting side effects. Not the least of which is that, if the object somehow did violate the laws of physics as we understand them, most of human science would need to be rewritten.

I personally believe in a soul/spirit. I also believe that time and space are not real issues for the soul - it can jump around to the when and where however it feels, thus not being subjected to the problems we have. Given those 'laws' (which, of course, may not be, and it just another thing we haven't worked out yet), it means that the soul would not be subject to them. But (and why I said that as I did, Ped), that just opens up a whole can of worms that's even harder to make assertions for. Given lack of evidence in the first place that qualifies as even 'proof' in a trial, what hope then to try and understand how it works??? I mean, if I can't convince you even of the first premise, how the hell am I going to get to number 2??

Okay, the "we have souls/spirits" part I'd let slide for the sake of having a debate about some of the consequences. But the jumping around in time/space? Our souls are all Time Lords? Not so sure I can buy that. It's also possible I misunderstood you, so please elaborate.

sort of like ghosts being able to move things, yet can travel through walls

Fair enough. But I have to point out that either they are part of this universe (and therefore subject to the laws that we don't fully understand), or they are not part of this universe. And if they are not, then their connection to things which are a part of this universe would have to be subject to them. If they're not subject to those laws, then they would have a mechanism for making things happen in this universe that allows the laws of this universe to be violated. See above about minor side effects of that :)

Oh - and back to brain vs free will... Pedersen, if the brain reaches it's decision 10 seconds before conscious awareness, and also if free will is defined as rational agent exercising control.... why do we sometimes do competely stupid things like 'randomly' bang our fist into our heads, and other sort of psychotic stuff like that?? Here, I'm getting into Jung and Freud etc, and all those things hidden away in the Sub-conscious - archetypes, and complexes and all of that psychiatric stuff.

How many explanations would you like? There is of course the simplistic (an electrical misfire in the nervous system causes a twitch or series of twitches that result in a person hitting their head), through the complex (the person doing it actually derives some pleasure from the pain, and is not getting sufficient pleasure from the world at the moment, so the brain decides to give itself what it wants, and causes the hit). Of course, there are a myriad of explanations in between.

So, I will ask - at what point did 'free will' enter into the universe? Does it take a particular level of complexity? Was it always there, just waiting to be used? Can a sufficiently complex robot or android be said to have free will? Is it limited to particular neural pathways - or did that amoeba way back near the beginning have free will as well? Is it thus based only on the setup of chemicals and the like??

And I will ask: Did it enter into the universe? Or do we merely have an illusion of free will?

(ok, getting tired now, and a bit more incoherent :p want sleep - but shouldn't cos it throws out my patterns...)

And someday, I'll get my sleep schedule set nicely. I'm jealous of you for that.

This study show that subconsious is faster than consious, at least on easy and fast decisions....
Does that mean the decision takes place outside ourselves, though ? tis still my brain, ain't it ?

And yet, it is demonstrably not your self-awareness that is making the choice. To provide an analogy, let's assume for a moment that a full-on AI has been built, and it's the AI that's making those choices. Would you then argue that the computer has free will, even though we can explain every single branch that was taken on the CPU that led to those choices?

Just like your bain can cut out sounds on its own, filter out inputs that were deemed irrelevant through the lense of experience
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habituation
It's likely it does the same things with decisions. Particularly when that decision is push a button or not. You'll be aware of the decision only when it will reache importance enouigh to be sent to the conscious part of yourself, but it's still you. Nothing outside of you.

Actually, I'd recommend re-reading that Wall Street Journal article (http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB121450609076407973.html). To quote:
Moreover, the more factors to be considered in a decision, the more likely the unconscious brain handled it all better, they reported in the peer-reviewed journal Science in 2006. "The idea that conscious deliberation before making a decision is always good is simply one of those illusions consciousness creates for us," Dr. Dijksterhuis said.

In other words, there is a part of your brain that is making the decisions for the conscious portion of your mind, and the more complex the decision, the more likely it is that you should go with the part that you are unaware of and unable to control, which does directly against the idea that you are actually in control (and, therefore, have free will)

If you take the definition of free will offered by Pederson (the ability of the self to influence its actions), then it's relatively easy to point out when this function was first seen: look at the animals and see which one was able to resist its instincts first.

Correction: I did not say "influence its actions", I said "control its actions". If all you can do is influence yourself, well, you're not really in control, are you? And, without that control, how much free will can you actually be said to have?

the laws of physics are not accurate. That's why there's actually more than one set of them (quantic, relativity, chaos, etc). Each set is limited to a particular area of observation, which must be defined and accepted before using a particular set of physic. An again: they are accurate to a certain degree of error.

Here is the gravest factual error you make, so I must correct it: You are conflating two different concepts, and using that conflation to bolster a weak argument. The concepts are:

The laws of physics.
Our understanding of those laws.

The laws of physics do not change, and are absolutely 100% precise in their operation. Our understanding of those laws, though, does change and improve over time. Our understanding is inaccurate, but getting better. Which is why I said "the laws of physics", not "our understanding of the laws of physics."

Most of the rest of what you said is based on this erroneous conflation of ideas, so I won't respond to it. That would be beating a very dead horse. With one minor exception:

Fact is: they can be predicted within a certain degree of accuracy. Because we know of conditions which 'favors' their apparitions. That doesn't mean all of them are predicted, or that the predictions are correct. Hell, look at the discrepency between the weather report and real life, would you ? Then consider all these events of nature that are supposedly quantified and understood, and how often the prediction is wrong.

I must correct you here. I never said these events were predictable. I said we knew that they were not random. There is an enormous difference between the two, as any mathematician, physicist, chemist, mechanic, etc, can tell you. Heck, we've got great examples just from computers, the most deterministic thing we know of!

Consider this: Out there in the world wide web, it is certain that some websites will try to install spyware on your computer. It is also certain that some of those websites appear legitimate. And of all websites, you have no 100% reliable way of knowing if the one you are about to click on is legitimate or not. It's not random, but it is unpredictable at this time.

I hope that helps with making the distinction.

DrT

11-26-2008, 08:35 AM

In other words, there is a part of your brain that is making the decisions for the conscious portion of your mind, and the more complex the decision, the more likely it is that you should go with the part that you are unaware of and unable to control, which does directly against the idea that you are actually in control (and, therefore, have free will)

At least according to that one person.
Actually, since I mistrust journalists talking about science ( a pet peeve of mine I spose), I went to the source instead
The studies mentionne din the article have little in common, if anything at all. I can send the materials, but I won't put them on the forum as it would be publishing (and I think that's a tad illegal). However I obtained them legally and I can share them through Email. I do recommand you to do that before reading the next part, however your can jump directly to the end about physics.

What it reveals, in my reading, is that:
-The Haynes study shown that a decision is encoded in the brain 10s before being sent to the motor neurons. In that experiment, it means that the subject decided to push the right or left button 10s before actually doing it (since they were faced with images flipping 2/s, I can't blame them), and that decision was taken about 12 s after the beginning of the experiment.
As far as awareness, I'm not sure. The person may have been aware of which button they'll push before actually deciding to do it, and it would all have been a conscious choice (I can put myself in the shoes of the student being tested and imagine doing just the same). Unfortunately there is no mention of that possibility in the paper.
-The Dijksterhuis study, as you may see from the discussions it started (the comments), is more vague and has nothign to do with brain waves. You may find out that following your gut instinct (which happens to be a conscious decision) is better than deliberating the option for a long time, I'd rather be prutend. No talk of free will anywhere there.

Here is the gravest factual error you make, so I must correct it: You are conflating two different concepts, and using that conflation to bolster a weak argument. The concepts are:

The laws of physics.
Our understanding of those laws.

Ok, let's say there are set principles by which the universe is governed are set. Fair enough.
How is that contradictory to free will ?
These principles, or rules, are not controlling entities. They're just rules. Like: I can't fly by just deciding to do so. I gotta play by the rules of gravity and invent a place that fucks gravity up the ass with bells on.
Gravity is not going to grow an arm and bring my plane back on the ground even if it's still working fine. gravity doesn't take decisions, it's just a rule, not a conscious being.

Playing by the rules is not the same as having your decisions taken by them. So enlighten me here.

I must correct you here. I never said these events were predictable. I said we knew that they were not random. There is an enormous difference between the two, as any mathematician, physicist, chemist, mechanic, etc, can tell you. Heck, we've got great examples just from computers, the most deterministic thing we know of!

ACtually, no.
We know how they happen, ie: we know which factors will favor their apparitions.
But do we know what favored the apparition of these factors ? And the factoors at their source? Pretty sure that if we gathered the brain power to dig deep enough, it would boil down to 'this electron went that way instead of this way, and I have no clue why it did that, it could have been both ways and there is no way to figure out the outcome'. Or something along those lines.
And that is random.

Pedersen

11-29-2008, 04:07 AM

Ok, let's say there are set principles by which the universe is governed are set. Fair enough.
How is that contradictory to free will ?

Simple: The laws of physics governs everything, from the smallest sub-atomic particle up through the the largest structures, everything that can be found in this universe is governed by it.

Free will requires that you are able to choose. Everything in the universe works in a pre-defined way. You are unable to make a choice to do anything unless physics allows it to happen. That's not saying that physics has a conscious mind: It's saying that if, in order for you to make a choice, this one specific sub-atomic particle has to go left at this precise instant, and it goes right, you are not able to make the choice.

But do we know what favored the apparition of these factors ? And the factoors at their source? Pretty sure that if we gathered the brain power to dig deep enough, it would boil down to 'this electron went that way instead of this way, and I have no clue why it did that, it could have been both ways and there is no way to figure out the outcome'. Or something along those lines.
And that is random.

Two points here.

First, you are again conflating two concepts. This time, you are conflating "random" with "we don't know".

An excellent example of this would be reproduction. Go far enough backwards in history, and you will find that humanity did not understand that a sperm had to fertilize an egg. As far as people could determine, a woman getting pregnant after having sex with a guy was a random event. One way of expressing this would be "We don't know why some women get pregnant after sex and others do not." I think you'll agree that, by now, we very clearly understand that it is not a random occurrence.

Now, the same applies to many other fields of study. We have a great many things where we have to say "We don't know, and we don't even know how to know." That does not make them random. It just makes them unmeasurable to us at this time. There is a very large gap between those two concepts, and it would behoove you to stop conflating them.

Oh, that second point? I'll accede to the idea that random motion at the sub-atomic level exists. Not just that we don't know how to measure it, but that it's actually random. Here's your challenge from that point, though: Explain to me how it is logically possible that conscious choice can result from random action beyond the control of the conscious mind. No, I do not mean explain the physical mechanics, since neither of us has the background to either explain it, or necessarily understand the explanation presented.

I mean on a conceptual/logical level. Random action beyond the control of the conscious mind is your argument that free will exists. Show me a series of logical steps that would allow the existence of free will using random motion, and don't forget to include the effect of the laws of physics in your proof.

Go.

DrT

11-29-2008, 01:20 PM

Simple: The laws of physics governs everything, from the smallest sub-atomic particle up through the the largest structures, everything that can be found in this universe is governed by it.
Free will requires that you are able to choose. Everything in the universe works in a pre-defined way. You are unable to make a choice to do anything unless physics allows it to happen.

True, if I decide to fly away in the sun, I can't.

But if I decide to go left instead of right, neither choice is influenced by physics.
It's like in any game: you have rules. you're able to do what you want within these rules, but not get out of them.
the decisions you take, as long as they stay within these rules, are free.
That is free will.
You may call it something else, in order to take into account the fact that it is restricted to the rules of physics, but nevertheless the only thing deciding which keyboard key to type, right now, is me. And only me.

That's not saying that physics has a conscious mind: It's saying that if, in order for you to make a choice, this one specific sub-atomic particle has to go left at this precise instant, and it goes right, you are not able to make the choice.
Indeed, if I take a bullet to the head, physics say I can't use the neurons that just got shattered...
change of rules, but is it really change in free will ? Tis like changing the game you play.... you're still free to do whatever within that new game.

I think you seem to consider free will as the ability to do anything, absolutely anything.
That may not be that. You still have to be within the realm of reality and obey it's rules (y'know, stuff falls down, air doesn't conduct electricity, women are evil...) I spose for you it means you're not free to chose.

Two points here.
First, you are again conflating two concepts. This time, you are conflating "random" with "we don't know".

Fair enough. I'd allow we don't know if it's really random ;)

I mean on a conceptual/logical level. Random action beyond the control of the conscious mind is your argument that free will exists. Show me a series of logical steps that would allow the existence of free will using random motion, and don't forget to include the effect of the laws of physics in your proof.
Go.
Sure.
New Ideas/concept are created through random activation of decision loops within the brain. For a reason yet unknow, as you think about something (ie: activate several neuronal loops within your brain), orther patterns will shoot up and join the mess, at random (cause the electron was here instead of there).
You will thus be faced with novel ideas (the marriage of known concepts in a pattern you never considered before), and the only thing that will keep you from chosing to accept them, act upon them, write them down, is you. you are free.
Since this all process happens within you brain/body complex, and is integrated to the environment's stimuli, the only this remaining to chose this or that pattern of though is your conscious mind.

Slytovhand

11-29-2008, 05:54 PM

what what what what what?????New Ideas/concept are created through random activation of decision loops within the brain. For a reason yet unknow, as you think about something (ie: activate several neuronal loops within your brain), orther patterns will shoot up and join the mess, at random (cause the electron was here instead of there).

Now, I admit, after reading this, I thought to myself "maybe I have a misunderstood on the word 'random'", so I did a google:define. And guess what... nothing came up that I didn't really expect. (well, ok, stuff on bands and all... oh, and the sheared carpet...)

I'm thinking that once again, someone here is using the term 'random' to mean 'we don't understand it yet'.

No, the brain doesn't do 'random activation of decision loops'. Otherwise, pretty much everyone would be insane. Just imagine where those thought processes would lead us if they were truly random. Common sense truly wouldn't be common - it would be random.

There is quite clearly a pattern involved. There is some basis behind the firing of neurons, and some specific reason as to what will go where. Humans are complex little beings, so it makes psychology pretty much a pain in the butt (but only cos that's where a lot of ppl keep their sense). But that doesn't mean we and our psyches are random.

And Ped and I have both asked the question which has yet to be touched on (other than in 'simplistic' terms) - what about true AI?

New Ideas/concept are created through random activation of decision loops within the brain. For a reason yet unknow, as you think about something (ie: activate several neuronal loops within your brain), orther patterns will shoot up and join the mess, at random (cause the electron was here instead of there).
I thought that was because of our experience and our genetics?? And genetics is how the brain started out (or is that in debate??) and our experience is now 'randomly' imprinted into the brain.

Which does bring us back to the question I asked but was brushed aside as being an 'enormity'... at what point do we get free will? When we have 1 cell in the womb? A brain? A fully-formed brain? When we start to think? When we start to experience? When we can interpret that experience? Because... at one point or another, the brain hasn't existed except in potential. It is genetics (which is determined by genetics. And thus, we can (perhaps will, but I'm not holding my breath) figure out just how those experiences get imprinted into the brain. Since the 'mind' and 'us' is now being defined as a purely physical construct, and that 'me' is made up of genetics and experiences, which then brings it down to genetics and genetics - because it is those genetics which will define not only how the brain is made, but how the brain will be made...and changed. This is part of the rules that you have to play by.

Free will being a function of the brain?? That's only by your definition, and only because you are choosing to define it that way.

Sub-atomics?? I seriously doubt that they are truly 'random'... just another example of "we don't know, probably won't".

Weather?? Meh, I'm betting we get that one in the next 50 years... if not 20.

Pedersen, a question (and that's all it is at this moment in time...). Do you think it's possible for other parts of the universe to not be affected by all of the laws that we are, but are bound by other laws. And, while doing so, are able to interact with this part of it? If we take this as a premise, would that mean that any entity (or whatever may be defined as one) be able to have free will, or is just as limited as ourselves?...5:34 am, at work... not thinking :p)

Next, yes, I am thinking that most of our science is going to be re-written :p Well, certainly a nice chunk of physics might get a bit of a kick. But then, how was the science of sociology prior to humanity walking this earth??

Time Lord souls?? Well, no TARDIS, no Daleks, and no companions... but yes, I can see a place for it, and it serves... though obviously with qualification. But I can appreciate that non-believers would see me as a total and utter looney :p

Ooh... dropping that hot coffee into my lap was predestined since the beginning of time...cool :p

Oh, and I'd say free will entered the universe when we did - but 'we' isn't merely a physical body!

What, you have rotating shifts... sucky! I have standard times, just all graveyards.

Pedersen

11-30-2008, 04:14 AM

Since we seem to agree on the majority of physics, I'm going to let that go, and instead focus on the "logical" argument you present.

Sure.
New Ideas/concept are created through random activation of decision loops within the brain.

Okay, so now the brain has decision loops. If we analyze this terminology choice, we find that the brain has at least two places responsible for all decision making. And these places are run in loops. Now, something running in a loop tends to run the same way each time. Breaking out of any given loop is a central theme of quite a few stories. So, it's reasonable to assume that the loops in the brain fit the "classical" definition of loops, and will provide the same output each time they are run. However, I'll be generous, and assume that by "decision loop" you mean "decision making processors", which take available inputs, perform some work on them, and produce some output.

Now, you are asserting that those decision making loops are activated at random. Since they are random, the rational agent (i.e.: the self) is unable to choose which decision making processor will handle making the decision, thereby removing a fairly critical aspect of the decision making process, and thereby reducing the level of "free will" that is even possible.

All of this ignores the nature of the decision making processors, though. These are items that are not under the conscious control of the rational agent. As such, the decision making processor must act without the oversight of the rational agent. Again, this limits the amount of free will that is even possible.

For a reason yet unknow, as you think about something (ie: activate several neuronal loops within your brain), orther patterns will shoot up and join the mess, at random (cause the electron was here instead of there).

So, now the rational agent will be subjected to random joinings of random ideas due to action on a subatomic level. The rational agent is unable to choose which ideas to explore next. Instead, random action governs what it will ponder next. Again, reduction in the amount of free will possible.

You will thus be faced with novel ideas (the marriage of known concepts in a pattern you never considered before), and the only thing that will keep you from chosing to accept them, act upon them, write them down, is you. you are free.

Actually, by your own statements above, the only thing preventing me from acting on them is the random action at the subatomic level. If the random action does not provide me with the idea to write the idea down, then I am unable to contemplate that idea. Again, reduction in the amount of free will possible.

Since this all process happens within you brain/body complex, and is integrated to the environment's stimuli, the only this remaining to chose this or that pattern of though is your conscious mind.

As it turns out, though, thanks to the random action and random ideas that occur, it seems that the conscious mind is quite unable to do anything on its own other than wait for the right random subatomic motion to allow it to conceive of doing something.

With all the reductions in even the possible amounts of free will that come about as a result of your argument, it sounds more like we have no free will, as opposed to actually having it.

I'd have to say that your "logical proof" only serves to strengthen my position on the lack of free will, not weaken it.

I'm thinking that once again, someone here is using the term 'random' to mean 'we don't understand it yet'.

No, Slyt, I decided to pretend for a bit, and state that, for the sake of his argument, truly random does exist. Not just "we can't measure it", but genuinely, truly, random. I think you'll see it didn't really help his case very much.

And Ped and I have both asked the question which has yet to be touched on (other than in 'simplistic' terms) - what about true AI?

I've read and re-read this thread about four times now, and I can't find it. I'm pretty sure that I saw DrT state that, since the entire mechanism would be known and understood, then even a true AI would not have free will. Since I can't find it, I can't prove it, though.

Pedersen, a question (and that's all it is at this moment in time...). Do you think it's possible for other parts of the universe to not be affected by all of the laws that we are, but are bound by other laws. And, while doing so, are able to interact with this part of it? If we take this as a premise, would that mean that any entity (or whatever may be defined as one) be able to have free will, or is just as limited as ourselves?...5:34 am, at work... not thinking :p)

I've never been to other parts of the universe, so I can't speak with any degree of certainty, unfortunately. However, I do believe that the actual laws of phsyics hold across the universe (not our understanding of those laws, since I think we've got a lot of things wrong that we will find out about eventually), but the actual laws? Yes, I believe they hold across the universe.

As such, I believe that any entity which interacts with our universe must be limited by those laws. And if an entity were to find ways to violate some of those laws, I think things would get very ugly very quickly.

Time Lord souls?? Well, no TARDIS, no Daleks, and no companions... but yes, I can see a place for it, and it serves... though obviously with qualification. But I can appreciate that non-believers would see me as a total and utter looney :p

Nah, just having a different set of spiritual beliefs. Of course, I now have to ask: Your beliefs seem to allow souls to move through space and time at will. Are they actually attached to our bodies then? Or does the body function for a while without the soul? Furthermore, does this mean that we should be able to remember things from the past?

Slytovhand

11-30-2008, 06:47 AM

Just quickly cos I'm not at work (Ha! I challenge anyone else to use that line!! :p)

Firstly, I wasn't thinking about all laws applying equally. So, there are 'laws' in place which dictate which other laws apply how strongly and where (for wants of better words). We already know this to be true - time isn't always 1 second/second - gravity affects it. Black Holes throw a real dent in the birthday parties one expects.

Our mathematicians have 'proven' the existence of multiple dimensions, and I believe that various physicists are using those proofs to prove String Theory. So, our universe is still one great big pile of massively unknown phenomenon that we humans are gaping at like infants at a mobile... So it's not a matter of 'violating' the laws, but being in a different relation to the ones that we have a certain relationship with.

And since you asked the question, very quickly... 'we' have a 'soul'. We aren't really the soul, cos there's lots we're cut off from, or not aware of (obviously), but it 'resides' in an area (for want of a better word) outside of time and space. It, for whatever reason, drops 'spirits' down to the various bits of the multiverse - in different times, dimensions, places - presumedly to gain XP and go up a level...(well - to learn directly instead of merely indirectly... because...well.... because... why do people go climb mountains???) These 'spirits' are a better term for 'us', and they are the 'us' that can drop bodies and experience multiple physical lifetimes worth of experiences.

Why don't we remember? Well, there are a couple of answers for this. Firstly, it's the spirit doing the reincarnating, not the soul, so we don't get to synchronise with the mother ship and download all available data - it wouldn't be worth it... for the second reason. Secondly, in order to experience something as a human, you must experience it solely as a human. You can't do the "what's it like to be a bird?" while still thinking those human thoughts. You can't really find out what it's like to be a prisoner while knowing that you can step out that door anytime you want. Although, having tasted freedom, you can appreciate what imprisonment is really like... which is why the spirit will recall some information. We humans have really strange tendencies. Some are really obvious to see the cause of, others not so. Why do some people have phobias for no apparent reason? Or interesting feelings towards people and places? Or particular habits?? And why, for such people as myself, have certain things going through the head that fall into the category of 'memory'?? Some do get past life recall. But the death process is pretty harsh for most who become attached to the physical body (given #2 above). So too is the birth process. But... there are techniques which one can do which can help in general, and one of the end results of doing those techniques past life recall vastly better - because it confronts the things in us that 'we' want to forget. Humans are very good at trying to forget things. So good, it's become automatic!!

Now, Pedersen, I have to ask you a question. It's been asked before, but not quite answered. What is this 'I' that is spoken of in this thread?? The self?? Is it merely a physical construct from the workings of the brain - so the brain and mind are one and the same? Are they different fish? Does the brain have anything to do with the self at all??

DrT

11-30-2008, 01:28 PM

Since we seem to agree on the majority of physics, I'm going to let that go, and instead focus on the "logical" argument you present.

actually, you have yet to prove that 'physics rules the universe' and 'free will' are incompatible. I would think that is important, since it's the concept you're basing your entire argument on

Okay, so now the brain has decision loops. If we analyze this terminology choice, we find that the brain has at least two places responsible for all decision making. And these places are run in loops. Now, something running in a loop tends to run the same way each time. Breaking out of any given loop is a central theme of quite a few stories. So, it's reasonable to assume that the loops in the brain fit the "classical" definition of loops, and will provide the same output each time they are run. However, I'll be generous, and assume that by "decision loop" you mean "decision making processors", which take available inputs, perform some work on them, and produce some output.

more or less, with one important point: it's able to feedback on it's latest output an modify the decision process the next time around according to the new data.

Now, you are asserting that those decision making loops are activated at random.

no. that is not what I wrote.

I said that in the mess that is the decision making process, which is not a loop, but a combinaison of a multiple loop (think fractal), some loops will be activated at random: ideas and concetps will be linked in way that were unfathomable and random (or not undertood yet, if that pleases you). some loops.

So, now the rational agent will be subjected to random joinings of random ideas due to action on a subatomic level. The rational agent is unable to choose which ideas to explore next. Instead, random action governs what it will ponder next. Again, reduction in the amount of free will possible.

No.
Again, it's not what I wrote.
Though random loops are indeed created and add to the decision process, the conscious mind may or may not accept to act upon them.

Since the rest of your argument is based on your misreading of my argument (it may be my fault, I may not have expressed myself properly, hopefully this clarification helped) I'll stop there.

The main point here is that since some of our decisions are the fruit of ideas created in an unfathomable and random fashion, and that we are free to act upon them or not (at random, or not, I may after all decide to do something on the simple premise of 'why not?' and that's pretty close to random), we have free will.

Boozy

11-30-2008, 02:01 PM

There is a book by the physicist Evan Harris Walker called "The Physics of Consciousness" that deals with free will and neuroscience, how the brain makes decisions, and the nature of consciousness.

Neuro-physics is still a science in its infancy. Currently there exists a theory that random electron firings affect decision-making in the brain, but this is far from proven. The book makes a good case for it, but doesn't come to any conclusions.

Edited to add: I finally managed to find the book in my library. The publication date is 2000, and this is the last thing I've read on the subject. I felt I should add the caveat that my information is not up-to-date.

Slytovhand

11-30-2008, 02:30 PM

I know what Ped is going to say, so I'll just jump in and say it now...

firstly, Dr T, what precisely is your definition of the word 'random'? Because it quite clearly isn't the one that Pedersen or I are using, as we've both pointed out (a few times).

actually, you have yet to prove that 'physics rules the universe' and 'free will' are incompatible. True, but it is a presumption that has been thrashed out, and yet to be disproved, nor even effectively countered.. hence why this thread is now on page 5.

@Boozy - cool! I'd imagine there have been further publications on it, but it would be interesting reading (if brain-wracking...). I'd also be thinking it would be pretty damn hard to prove 'random electrong firings' in a working brain... certainly not with today's technology. I'm interested, though, in "doesn't come to any conclusions" - does it make counter arguments?

Pedersen

11-30-2008, 04:32 PM

no. that is not what I wrote.

It distresses me that I have to help out your arguments by stating things like "For the sake of argument, let's assume that you are correct, and blah happens" and then, after doing that, I have to explain your argument to you, it really does.

So, let's examine what, exactly, you wrote (again):

New Ideas/concept are created through random activation of decision loops within the brain.

In this sentence, the word "random" is used as an adjective. It is, therefore, modifying the word "activation". The definition of random is "a lack of order, purpose, cause, or predictability" (from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random)). Activation is used as a noun, in this sentence. Activation is defined as "the execution of an operation" (from McGraw-Hill (http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0077110005/student_view0/glossary.html)). "of decision loops" is a prepositional phrase. In this sentence, it used to state what is being randomly activated. "within the brain" is a prepositional phrase as well, and is stating the location of the random activations. "new" is an adjective modifying "ideas/concept", which is the subject. "are created" is the verb.

Therefore, in this sentence, you have very clearly, using the accepted rules of the English language, stated the beginning of your supposition. Namely, that through a process which lacks order, cause, purpose, or predictability, the execution of the operation of decision making is commenced. Furthermore, since you did not modify "ideas/concept" with the word "some", you are making the statement that all "new ideas/concept" are processed through the "random activation of decision loops within the brain".

This also means that any new idea must go through the same process. If I have the idea to write my new idea down, it must, therefore, have gone through the random activation process.

So yes, that is very much what you said. If it is not what you meant, then please clarify. Ah, I see you did:

I said that in the mess that is the decision making process, which is not a loop, but a combinaison of a multiple loop (think fractal), some loops will be activated at random: ideas and concetps will be linked in way that were unfathomable and random (or not undertood yet, if that pleases you). some loops.

No.
Again, it's not what I wrote.
Though random loops are indeed created and add to the decision process, the conscious mind may or may not accept to act upon them.

Ah, I'm sorry, you didn't. You've now added in the qualifier "some" to "loops". Since that was never in dispute, that does not truly help your position. I also see that now you are choosing to add in the idea of "fractal loops". Changing your terms is acceptable, since I see this as refining your position. Telling me that I have misread your argument after changing your terms, though, is not.

Oh, and something else to ponder: Fractal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal) is probably not a very good choice to add to your position. Fractal indicates something which is self-similar, regardless of the level of detail. This means you can zoom in on it infinitely, and always see something that has very similar appearance and structure.

And, finally, we have a disturbing hole in the remaining bit of your "clarification": "The conscious mind may or may not accept to act upon them". Above, you have posited that the decision making processors are randomly activated, which asserts that the conscious mind has no control over their actual activation. You have also provided no potential mechanism for their operation (not even logically) that would allow the rational agent in question control over them. All of this combines to prevent the rational agent from having the ability to possess free will. It is, instead, enslaved to random activation of decision making processors and their (opaque) operations.

Since the rest of your argument is based on your misreading of my argument (it may be my fault, I may not have expressed myself properly, hopefully this clarification helped) I'll stop there.

Actually, I would have to posit that your position was misstated, not misread. In fact, you can now even say "woops, that was bad, let me try again" and start from scratch. I'm flexible like that.

The main point here is that since some of our decisions are the fruit of ideas created in an unfathomable and random fashion, and that we are free to act upon them or not (at random, or not, I may after all decide to do something on the simple premise of 'why not?' and that's pretty close to random), we have free will.

"Why not?" is as far from random as you can get. "Why not" indicates that you have no reason not to do something, which means you have given it thought. That makes it deliberate, which is quite definitely the antithesis of random.

To Boozy/Slyt: I'll respond to you guys in a bit. Got to get out and do errands. So, to accept a challenge: Just quickly, cause I'm not at work ;)

DrT

11-30-2008, 05:12 PM

As I stated, it was probably my fault for not expressing my argument right, nevertheless let's get finished:
-you jumped from 'new idea are activated through random event' to 'decisions are random'. That was wrong: a decision may include an idea generated randomly, that doesn't make the whole process random.

-fractal indeed is a bad idea, thus let simply state that a decision is reached through the interaction of a large quantities of decisional loops, treating different inputs through different channels. these channels ironed through experience. To these lets add the randomly generated ones.

The conscious mind review these loops, or actually: reviews the ones that the inconscious mind deems appropriatly important for the conscious mind to care about. As an idea, hence a series of loop, gains importance, it is travelled more frequently (ie: in the mass of ideas, there's a few that you lilke the most: you discard the others, focus on these, review them more (loop more) and once a loop reached critical mass, it takes precedence over the others.
The critical mass is aquired by reviewing that loop the most.

-the 'why not' thing as not being random.... A new idea was born through that random even, since it's new you can't figure out a reason to do it, you do it.

Random electron firing: tis the background noise of the EEG.

True, but it is a presumption that has been thrashed out, and yet to be disproved, nor even effectively countered.. hence why this thread is now on page 5.

It's an empty presumption, with no argument backing it. How can you disprove empty ? It's the reason I ask Petersen to back it up, because right now it doesn't make enough sense to warrant any consideration.

Pedersen

12-01-2008, 03:23 AM

There is a book by the physicist Evan Harris Walker called "The Physics of Consciousness" that deals with free will and neuroscience, how the brain makes decisions, and the nature of consciousness.

Thanks Boozy. It's now on my list of books to find/read.

Firstly, I wasn't thinking about all laws applying equally. So, there are 'laws' in place which dictate which other laws apply how strongly and where (for wants of better words). We already know this to be true - time isn't always 1 second/second - gravity affects it. Black Holes throw a real dent in the birthday parties one expects.

Actually, time is is always 1 second/second, so far as we can tell. What you are thinking of is the frame of reference phenomenon, where time will appear to pass at different rates to different observers depending on their location and speed relative to other phenomena. So, while you're right, I had to nitpick at that, primarily because it can affect other arguments you present.

Our mathematicians have 'proven' the existence of multiple dimensions, and I believe that various physicists are using those proofs to prove String Theory. So, our universe is still one great big pile of massively unknown phenomenon that we humans are gaping at like infants at a mobile... So it's not a matter of 'violating' the laws, but being in a different relation to the ones that we have a certain relationship with.

I will admit that it is possible that certain laws will affect you differently depending on other factors. For instance, the black hole thing you mentioned is not so much about gravity as it is about acceleration.

Diversion from the main topic here, and I apologize: What happens with a black hole, to the best of our understanding, is that the matter that comprises the black hole is so densely packed that not even light can escape the vicinity of the black hole. However, obviously light still exists, so there is a point past which the gravitational pull of the black hole has weakened enough that light is able to escape. This location is called the event horizon. In order for a matter to cross the event horizon, it must be moving at the speed of light.

Very closely related: The faster an object moves, the slower time passes for it relative to other objects. The closer the velocity is to the speed of light, the slower time passes for all matter moving at that velocity. Furtheremore, the closer to the speed of light, the more massive the object becomes. The more massive the object becomes, the more energy that is required to accelerate the object. This results in a minor issue: It is impossible to accelerate matter to the speed of light, since to do so would require infinite energy. However, it's possible to accelerate it to very very close.

And the point of all this? For matter at that velocity, we would perceive time moving very slowly inside of that matter, while it moves normally to us. The laws are not violated, but they do seem to affect objects differently depending on other variables.

Now returning to the regularly scheduled thread :)

And since you asked the question, very quickly... 'we' have a 'soul'. We aren't really the soul, cos there's lots we're cut off from, or not aware of (obviously), but it 'resides' in an area (for want of a better word) outside of time and space. It, for whatever reason, drops 'spirits' down to the various bits of the multiverse - in different times, dimensions, places - presumedly to gain XP and go up a level...(well - to learn directly instead of merely indirectly... because...well.... because... why do people go climb mountains???) These 'spirits' are a better term for 'us', and they are the 'us' that can drop bodies and experience multiple physical lifetimes worth of experiences.

This actually isn't totally out there. I've thought similar things in the past, but not in quite those terms. More like "The universe broke itself into a thousand million little pieces, each of which was sent to learn something about itself. We are the universe, still learning." So, not as far out there as you might have thought.

Why don't we remember?--SNIP--

Actually, pretty coherent for a bunch of mystic mumbo-jumbo crap ;)

Seriously, it is a fairly coherent thought, and seems to hold well together. But, I'll be honest, I see nothing in there that requires (or even encourages) the notion of free will.

Now, Pedersen, I have to ask you a question. It's been asked before, but not quite answered. What is this 'I' that is spoken of in this thread?? The self?? Is it merely a physical construct from the workings of the brain - so the brain and mind are one and the same? Are they different fish? Does the brain have anything to do with the self at all??

Actually, I'm not quite sure. The simplest definition, and the only one I can feel 100% comfortable in saying is true, is that the "I" includes all of the physical pieces that make up a body, including the brain. It might include more, but I don't know. And I, personally, am not convinced it does.

As I stated, it was probably my fault for not expressing my argument right, nevertheless let's get finished:
Yes, let's. Since your entry into this particular debate, the single best contributions you have been able to make have required other people saying "Look, what you're describing is impossible, but just so you'll stop parroting these same ideas over and over, we'll pretend they can happen and would you please get on with it already?"

Quite frankly, I'm tired of trying to argue something logical with someone who insists on using repetition to back his position, even when he is shown (repeatedly) that what he is repeating is either logically or physically impossible. Then when the argument is dismantled line by line, he claims that I misread what he typed.

So, yes, I agree, let's get finished.

-you jumped from 'new idea are activated through random event' to 'decisions are random'. That was wrong: a decision may include an idea generated randomly, that doesn't make the whole process random.

Except for the simple fact that by your own definitions and descriptions of the process, any idea that can make it into the conscious brain can only come from these random processes. As a result, the brain ... oh hell, you know what? I really am tired of it.

Here, I'll give it to you on a silver platter. I realized this this afternoon. A method does exist whereby free will can exist, does not violate the laws of physics, and even allows for some variety of spirituality. I realized it thanks to Slyt, actually, who managed to bring souls back into this debate (not that I necessarily agree with it, but I can not prove this method false).

Here's that method:

Souls exist.
Souls have free will.
Since they have that free will, they must be able to decide independently of anything in our universe. Therefore, they must exist outside of it.
Since they exist outside of it, they must have some connection to our universe, to be able to direct our bodies to act according to their decisions.
That connection, on the side of the universe that holds our bodies, is subject to the laws of physics.
The souls would be unable to start an electron moving, or stop it. What they could do is control the seemingly random motion of the subatomic particles. Not stopping it or starting it, just altering the direction the particles take. Since this motion is, at this time, believed to be random, it is entirely possible that some outside force is controlling it.

There, you have it on a silver platter. Provided you believe the first two premises, the rest follow easily.

I was going to wait a few days to see if somebody else figured it out. But, as I said, I've hit my endurance level. Carrying both sides of the debate is a very draining experience.

Slytovhand

12-01-2008, 05:42 AM

Hey Ped.

I'll just throw in 2 cents...1c - is that the "I" includes all of the physical pieces that make up a body I won't go with that... you cut off a finger, aren't you still your 'self'? (yeah, I know, asking a question isn't a form of valid argument..:p) Or are you implying that everytime you lose a hair, or shed some skin, or cut off a nail, you are literally losing a piece of yourself? I was thinking that when you brought up something similar in MGM (not Metro Goldwyn Mayer, btw...)

2c - Souls have free will. still leaves us with the original problem - just moves it out of the boundaries of our understanding...

Thanks for the physics clarification. I wasn't exampling 'violations', but the point (as you succinctly put it) "but they do seem to affect objects differently depending on other variables." My bad on the bad science :(

I presume I don't need to go through my argument anymore then??? Granted, I didn't say anything that either requires the notion of free will (just stating an initial proposition), though it leads on to the next argument for 'encouragement'... but, given you've basically stated it (a little differently to how I would), is there much point to continue??

ETA: 'Random' - Speaking of that... technicality - just because something doesn't have a 'purpose', doesn't mean that it doesn't have either a 'cause' or 'lacks order or predictability'... And if something does have a purpose, it would entail one of the other 3 (I'm thinking... sort of wracking brain to find counter-examples...)

Slytovhand

12-01-2008, 05:52 AM

Oh - DrT..
Originally Posted by Slytovhand View Post
True, but it is a presumption that has been thrashed out, and yet to be disproved, nor even effectively countered.. hence why this thread is now on page 5.
It's an empty presumption, with no argument backing it. How can you disprove empty ? It's the reason I ask Petersen to back it up, because right now it doesn't make enough sense to warrant any consideration.

Damn - my bad!! Actually, Laws of Universe and incompatibility with Free Will was argued, backed up, and that's why we're on page 5. It's not a presumption - it's a conclusion seeking counter. Certainly, it's packed full of stuff, rather than being 'empty'.

DrT

12-01-2008, 01:29 PM

Oh - DrT..
Damn - my bad!! Actually, Laws of Universe and incompatibility with Free Will was argued, backed up, and that's why we're on page 5. It's not a presumption - it's a conclusion seeking counter. Certainly, it's packed full of stuff, rather than being 'empty'.

Err, no.

It was five pages of slight disgressions, a lot of misreading, plenty of time passed on taking appart the form arguments instead of focusing on their meaning, and plenty of 'if the rules of physics come into the process, there can be no free will'

and that last statement is still unexplained. We still don't know how the rules of a game supress all your liberties inside that game.

Well, you can make the argument that since there are rules (ie: things that cannot be done) then free will can't exist (ie: some decisions will simply not fit with reality). It's the allegory (or is it metaphor) of the prison that Pedersen formulated elsewhere.
However:
- you can still make the decision of doing something unrealistic. It won't work, but you were still free to try
-saying that the presence of rules denies the existence of free will goes further: it denies the existence of freedom itself.
-the fact that freedom in the game is denied by the rules of the game only applies if you can't leave the game. can't we can leave the universe/deny the grip the lwas of physics have on us ? at will ? isn't the door to the prison open ? Is that still a prison, then ? What keeps us inside the prison, if not ourselves ? Doesn't that mean were are free to chose to stay or go ? free, you said ?

That seems a more interresting discussion than the consequences of misreading and word-jumping.

Pedersen

12-01-2008, 06:15 PM

I'll just throw in 2 cents...1c - I won't go with that... you cut off a finger, aren't you still your 'self'? (yeah, I know, asking a question isn't a form of valid argument..:p) Or are you implying that everytime you lose a hair, or shed some skin, or cut off a nail, you are literally losing a piece of yourself? I was thinking that when you brought up something similar in MGM (not Metro Goldwyn Mayer, btw...)

Well, I'd have to go with losing a piece of yourself. It's an inconsequential piece, for the most part, but it is a piece of yourself. Scale it up a bit, and ask if you lose a piece of yourself if you lose a finger, or an arm, or an eye, etc. If so, then what's the difference between losing various bits of the body, except for the level of consequence?

2c - still leaves us with the original problem - just moves it out of the boundaries of our understanding...

It does very much do just that. I am willing to accept the idea that, in a place "outside" the universe, our physical laws would not be binding, and therefore things in that place would be able to do things we cannot do here.

Thanks for the physics clarification. I wasn't exampling 'violations', but the point (as you succinctly put it) "but they do seem to affect objects differently depending on other variables." My bad on the bad science :(

Nah, that's okay. You had the right idea. Black holes are just an extreme example. I just wanted to clarify things a bit there.

I presume I don't need to go through my argument anymore then??? Granted, I didn't say anything that either requires the notion of free will (just stating an initial proposition), though it leads on to the next argument for 'encouragement'... but, given you've basically stated it (a little differently to how I would), is there much point to continue??

Only if you wish. I find it interesting to learn different viewpoints on the universe. They make me think, and I do enjoy that.

ETA: 'Random' - Speaking of that... technicality - just because something doesn't have a 'purpose', doesn't mean that it doesn't have either a 'cause' or 'lacks order or predictability'... And if something does have a purpose, it would entail one of the other 3 (I'm thinking... sort of wracking brain to find counter-examples...)

Well, before you rack your brain too hard, keep in mind that was an "or" statement. If any one of those conditions is met, then the item in question is not random.

Damn - my bad!! Actually, Laws of Universe and incompatibility with Free Will was argued, backed up, and that's why we're on page 5. It's not a presumption - it's a conclusion seeking counter. Certainly, it's packed full of stuff, rather than being 'empty'.

Nah, Slyt, I'm sure you can see that it's obviously total fluff, no logic/etc. And, if not, well, we can have it pointed out to us pretty easily. Just look below:

It was five pages of slight disgressions, a lot of misreading, plenty of time passed on taking appart the form arguments instead of focusing on their meaning, and plenty of 'if the rules of physics come into the process, there can be no free will'

See, Slyt? It's all a big misreading on my part that I have failed to understand the meaning of what is being said.

DrT, you have truly amazed me. I mean, if amazement levels could be quantified and codified, such that amazement level 1 would be "wow, the sun came up again today" and amazement level 10 would be a physicist finding out that he could accelerate a 1970's era Ford Pinto to faster than light travel safely, my amazement level right now would probably still require scientific notation.

I mean, I've vivisected your arguments. I've shown the logic holes. I've said "fine, for the sake of argument, you can have this point, now please state your case" (twice!). I've even gone so far as to diagram your sentences to show you exactly what you are saying. And yet you come back and claim that I have failed to pay attention to the meaning of your arguments, and furthermore claim that I have not demonstrated my case.

Perhaps you forgot this post, that I'm quoting below?

No, I'm saying that we all have the following things in common:

I have a body.
In that body is a brain.
The brain is exclusively composed of physical matter.
All physical matter is affected by other physical matter in some way.
The brain is responsible for all decision making processes.
The brain, being affected by physical matter, therefore has its decision making processes affected by physical matter.
Any idea of free will relies on the brain being able to make a choice independently of outside influence.
The brain is unable to completely ignore physical matter (its own or other) during decision making processes. If the electrical impulses move in one direction, one decision will be made. If they move differently, a different decision will be made.
Since the brain is incapable of acting independently from the physical matter that composes it, and since the brain is purely physical matter, and since free will requires the ability to act independently of outside influence, there is no free will.

What you have failed to show is the logical hole in that progression. Please do. I would very much like to know where it is. I would love to actually debate something, as opposed to diagramming sentences. I haven't been given that option before now.

and that last statement is still unexplained. We still don't know how the rules of a game supress all your liberties inside that game.

If you would like to use the metaphor of a game to describe it, then allow me to show you a game that has no choices. Clock Solitaire (http://ja-games.co.uk/java-card-games/solitaire/clock-solitaire-game.php). The entire game is purely mechanical. No options exist, no branches may be taken. As such, the rules of a game suppress all liberties inside that game.

Now, that fits the criteria you supplied of "how the rules of a game suppress all your liberties inside that game" (emphasis added). Now, I know what's coming next: I took apart the form, and not the meaning. You will now demand that I explain how the laws of physics conspire to strip you of your liberties. Since you seem willing to restrict your argument to the secular, I will now do so.

Human beings have five senses: sight, smell, hearing, taste, and touch. Each of these senses functions very similarly. They are activated by specific nerves in specific portions of the body. When the nerve cells are stimulated, they respond by generating a small electrical charge, which then travels the nervous system into the brain. The brain has various processing centers which receive and act on these electrical impulses. Much processing is done by the various centers of the brain before being presented to the region of the brain that houses the conscious mind. As a noteworthy side effect, it takes approximately 0.25 seconds from the time something enters your field of perception before your conscious mind becomes aware of it.

Now, we have a very simple mechanism, easily understood: Electricity moves through the body, through the brain. Individual neurons react (or don't), and in varying degrees, to these impulses, allowing them to either pass along or suppress the impulses to other neurons.

In a purely secular argument, the brain houses the consciousness, and is the sole location of the consciousness. The conscious mind is incapable of directing the flows of eletricity within the brain (if you wish to claim it is, then please provide a citation). The end result is that the conscious mind is completely subject to the electrical flows within itself, thus removing free will.

Random motion, at this point, becomes irrelevant. It can exist or not, it does not matter. The brain, the home of the conscious, is subject entirely to it.

Is that specific enough for you?

-saying that the presence of rules denies the existence of free will goes further: it denies the existence of freedom itself.

Yes, it does. I might not like it. I might dread some of the consequences of it. But that does not change the fact that it does not exist.

-the fact that freedom in the game is denied by the rules of the game only applies if you can't leave the game. can't we can leave the universe/deny the grip the lwas of physics have on us ? at will ? isn't the door to the prison open ? Is that still a prison, then ? What keeps us inside the prison, if not ourselves ? Doesn't that mean were are free to chose to stay or go ? free, you said ?

And you accuse me of saying stuff like "You seem to believe that my inability to grow wings and fly denies the existence of free will" when you spout drivel like that? Very well, if you insist on making completely specious claims, I will allow you to do so. Nay, I will help you do so. Now how, pray tell, would one go about denying the grip of the laws of physics in this universe? Or even managing to leave it? I would very much like to know before my next heating bill arrives, please.

That seems a more interresting discussion than the consequences of misreading and word-jumping.

Honestly, I'd prefer a discussion where misreading is met with "Woops, I didn't explain myself well. Please disregard that, and use this in its place." It's okay to misread, and to misstate. But when your entire argument is shown to be logically unsound, replying with something like the above only shows an unwillingness to admit to being wrong.

We all are, on occasion. Hell, I might be wrong about this whole topic. I have yet to be shown one shred of evidence that shows me to be wrong, though. And I would really like it. I actually prefer the idea that we be free. But the evidence, more and more, is showing us not to be.

DrT

12-01-2008, 07:45 PM

In a purely secular argument, the brain houses the consciousness, and is the sole location of the consciousness. The conscious mind is incapable of directing the flows of eletricity within the brain (if you wish to claim it is, then please provide a citation). The end result is that the conscious mind is completely subject to the electrical flows within itself, thus removing free will.

but isn't the conscious mind all these electrical flows ?
As far as determing which comes first, of the consciousness of action or the inconscient preparation to the action, this makes for interesting reading
http://web.gc.cuny.edu/cogsci/private/haggard-libet.pdf

Oh, and in these experiments, when the subject finishes his action, the electrical flow stops. Does that count as your 'conscious minds directs the flow of electricity'?

Yes, it does. I might not like it. I might dread some of the consequences of it. But that does not change the fact that it does not exist.

Then don't start talking about free will, but about freedom. The 'will' part entails a whole bunch of stuff that's really noise in the discussion on freedom.

However, my next point does touch on freedom, so let's

And you accuse me of saying stuff like "You seem to believe that my inability to grow wings and fly denies the existence of free will" when you spout drivel like that? Very well, if you insist on making completely specious claims, I will allow you to do so. Nay, I will help you do so. Now how, pray tell, would one go about denying the grip of the laws of physics in this universe? Or even managing to leave it? I would very much like to know before my next heating bill arrives, please.

Suicide.
That would indeed sever my ties to the physical world, wouldn't it ?

Now, is there anything stopping me from ending myself, appart from me ? An I don't mean influences (like children, love, etc) but actual physical event that will prevent me from severing my ties to the physical world ?
will these electrical flows stop me from doing it ? or the rules of physics ? Anything else but my consciousness ?

Pedersen

12-01-2008, 08:56 PM

but isn't the conscious mind all these electrical flows ?
As far as determing which comes first, of the consciousness of action or the inconscient preparation to the action, this makes for interesting reading
http://web.gc.cuny.edu/cogsci/private/haggard-libet.pdf

Interesting paper for the most part, but it does not manage to draw any definitive conclusions. In fact, about all that it manages to say amounts to "I read someone else's work, thought it was interesting, did some of my own testing, and can't tell for sure if I did better or worse than him."

It's possible I've not understood all of what he said, though.

Oh, and in these experiments, when the subject finishes his action, the electrical flow stops. Does that count as your 'conscious minds directs the flow of electricity'?

So, let me see if I understand your question: The body performs an action. When that action is completed, those bits of feedback no longer need go towards the same centers of the brain, and therefore the electrical activity stops. Does that count as conscious direction of the electrical flow?

If that is your question, I'd have to say no. The conscious mind did not select to stop the direction of electrical flow. The body simply stopped sending it.

I doubt this will convince you, so let's put it another way: If the conscious mind is the one that directs the flow of electricity, then one of the thoughts that would have to occur is "Okay, time to drop the voltage to that area now." Since that thought does not occur (well, not in anybody that I've ever spoken with, I admit), this electrical flow is under the direction of something else.

Suicide.
That would indeed sever my ties to the physical world, wouldn't it ?

Let's see, if you kill yourself, do the atoms making up your body spontaneously disappear? No? Then no, you are still here. Not functioning the way you were before the suicide, but definitely still here.

So no, your ties are not severed. Good try, though.

Now, is there anything stopping me from ending myself, appart from me ? An I don't mean influences (like children, love, etc) but actual physical event that will prevent me from severing my ties to the physical world ?

Nope, not a thing. However, I have an interesting thought experiment for you. If the conscious mind is in control of the electrical flows throughout the body, and if those flows are required for life (as we understand it) to continue, then, through no more than free will, you should be able to end your life. You should not have to use anything more than the power of your mind.

Personally, I've not heard of people doing such things. Whenever an unusual death is fully investigated, there's always some physical cause. The body stopped.

Do suicides happen? Sure. The collection of electrical impulses that power the brain eventually lead to a state wherein the brain's decision making centers caused a set of actions that ended the electrical impulses in question.

That does not mean that the person chose it. It only means that things happened inside the brain to cause it. Big difference.

Slytovhand

12-02-2008, 05:31 AM

2 immediate thoughts..

First - the suicide idea... what has been presented infers that the 'me' or 'self' is non-physical.. by the quote "...severing my ties to the physical world?" (my emphasis). If the self is the consciousness, and the consciousness is completely physical, suicide only has the same effect as turning off a light-switch... with as much consequence (as far as this debate is concerned...). Turning off a light-switch has no significance in the 'free-will' debate. The analogy, I now realise after typing it, is extremely appropriate, as all the brain is is a big pile of electrical conductors (oh, and a stack of chemical storehouses and receptors). Flick the switch, no more electricity... no more consciousness. What leads up to that flick... that still brings us back to the initial argument, and hasn't moved it's position in any way.

Second thought (and still in development - I type on the fly...) - The conscious mind is incapable of directing the flows of eletricity within the brain (if you wish to claim it is, then please provide a citation).

This doesn't really help the discussion, as far as a purely secular argument goes, but how about meditation specifically tuned towards addressing how one thinks? The brain does change. New processors are made. New pathways formed. These are because, as DrT did point out, pathways are made and used over and over and over again, gaining some advantage (bad word... typing on fly), and thus, various 'thoughts' are more ingrained. But new thoughts are possible, new ways of thinking are possible. Although I'm not aware of anyone specifically meditating on 'let's create a new neural pathway from here to there', they do think the idea of 'let's change how I think about XYZ'.

We do know that meditation does have an effect on sensory input, and reactionary output. Good meditators can change a variety of physical actions in the body normally considered involuntary.

Thoughts???

NB: this argument doesn't actually change the free will idea... after all, some determination was in place to have the thought to change one's thoughts in the first place....

DrT

12-02-2008, 07:47 AM

Interesting paper for the most part, but it does not manage to draw any definitive conclusions. In fact, about all that it manages to say amounts to "I read someone else's work, thought it was interesting, did some of my own testing, and can't tell for sure if I did better or worse than him."

It's possible I've not understood all of what he said, though.

It basically says that the jury is still out, and tell sus why the old experiments have still a bias to them.

I doubt this will convince you, so let's put it another way: If the conscious mind is the one that directs the flow of electricity, then one of the thoughts that would have to occur is "Okay, time to drop the voltage to that area now." Since that thought does not occur (well, not in anybody that I've ever spoken with, I admit), this electrical flow is under the direction of something else.
.

Erm, I'd give you the old 'not yet'.
Since the understanding of the brain is only at its beginning, these thoughs cannot really be everyday, and thus we can't know for sure they are possible.
You however have people pretending they can control which part of the brain they are using, and direct themselves towards heightened awareness, sleep, and such things.
So I wouldn't rule it out just yet.

Let's see, if you kill yourself, do the atoms making up your body spontaneously disappear? No? Then no, you are still here. Not functioning the way you were before the suicide, but definitely still here.
So no, your ties are not severed. Good try, though.

Well, it depends what I am. And more importantly: what is life.

Am I a bunch of atoms put together ? Yes. But any bunch of atoms doesn't make a living being. You need something to hold to together, and that's the flow of energy. In a human it's so complex that you get a brain, with a flow of electrical energy added to the rest, but in a basteria, for instance, the flow of energy is purely biochemical.
Nevertheless, if you interrupt that flow, the bactery dies.

Now, the question is: does the individual stop being after the energy flow is stopped ?
If yes, the suicide thing stands. Because if you kill yourself, the energy flow stops. Remains a pile of atoms without direction, which structure will destroy itself to be recycled.
If not, it makes for an interesting phylosophical debate: what are we ? If we still are that body without an energy flow, then were to we go when the body decomposes ?

Personnaly I tend to believe that life is that flow of energy holding us together.

Nope, not a thing. However, I have an interesting thought experiment for you. If the conscious mind is in control of the electrical flows throughout the body, and if those flows are required for life (as we understand it) to continue, then, through no more than free will, you should be able to end your life. You should not have to use anything more than the power of your mind.
Personally, I've not heard of people doing such things. Whenever an unusual death is fully investigated, there's always some physical cause. The body stopped.

Well, I don't see why we should be forbidden the use of tools in order to commit suicide for the theory to hold, but ok.
Controlling death with the power of your mind ? You should look up monks, particularly the Tibetan ones. Their control of their bodily functions are extreme, and some are believed to be able to stop their life at will.

However, it goes back to my first answer: at the state of today's knowledge, such a level of control hasn't yet reached everyday life. That is just a matter of time, not a limitation of the means.
A nice example of the control of the mind on the body is the placebo effect. Take it forward in time, what wonders can you get ? I think it goes in the 'not yet explained' bin, not in the 'impossible' one

Until it is possible to kill ourselves with a though (which for all I know already is), then why should the use of a tool be forbidden for the theory to work ? You control that tool with your mind...

Do suicides happen? Sure. The collection of electrical impulses that power the brain eventually lead to a state wherein the brain's decision making centers caused a set of actions that ended the electrical impulses in question.
That does not mean that the person chose it. It only means that things happened inside the brain to cause it. Big difference.

So, you're infering that people commiting suicide didn't chose it ?
Well, you're going there alone, then.
I believe this action is one of the hardest there is, and only an iron clad will can pull it through. It therefore requiers all the power of the conscious mind to control the body until the trigger is pressed, the jump is made, etc.
I don't think the unconscious part of the brain can pull it off alone.
Sure, the mind can be altered to be pushed to suicide, but in that case the experiment is biased.
Healthy individuals can consider suicide. They generally chose not to perform it, because the benefits of stiking around outweight the benefits of leaving, but that's a conscious choice.

Slytovhand:
The fact that suicide ends the self doesn't mean that this action is unconscious. Humans are one of the few known entities that can voluntarily end their existence (I'm working on the premise that suicide is a voluntary and highly conscious act). Sooner of later in his life, a human will be faced with the choice to keep on living, or not.
With the 'not' choice being the easiest and painless one.

I infer that the only thing making that choice is the conscious mind, us. we are free to make that choice, at any time. free.

Here's my idea: we come to our consciousness in a universe rules by the lwas of physics, and in order to live there we need to obey them. Unlike all other known species, we are given the choice to stay or leave (at around the middle of teenage, I think. That would answer your 'when does free will come', Sly)
We chose to stay, with our conscious mind, probably because since we're going to leave this universe anyway (death is a 100% occurence, the only probability that is so certain) we might as well make the best for it.
Some of us, when it becomes too hard, decide to take their leave early.
It nevertheless boils down to the fact that the choice is ours, and nothing can make it for us. We are not forced to live here.
If we were forced, then yes we wouldn't be free. But since we aren't...

Sure the sensation of freedom would be greater if we knew there was something else after death. But the lack of information doesn't change the fact that we have the choice.

Boozy

12-02-2008, 11:56 AM

Controlling death with the power of your mind ? You should look up monks, particularly the Tibetan ones. Their control of their bodily functions are extreme, and some are believed to be able to stop their life at will.

Tangent!

It's amazing what some of the Zen monks can do. For example, some can stand in the ice and snow for days and not get frostbite.

Obviously, there's some sort of "mind over matter" argument to be made here, but I'm not sure what it is in the greater context of this thread. I haven't been following very closely. Carry on. :D

Flyndaran

12-03-2008, 12:18 AM

Tangent!

It's amazing what some of the Zen monks can do. For example, some can stand in the ice and snow for days and not get frostbite.

Obviously, there's some sort of "mind over matter" argument to be made here, but I'm not sure what it is in the greater context of this thread. I haven't been following very closely. Carry on. :D

Consciously controlling so called unconscious body functions is not mind over matter. It's simply the forebrain poking the basal to do what it want's it to do.

As a child I could control my internal body temperature, to make it higher at least. Certainly not supernatural.

DrT

12-03-2008, 11:51 AM

Consciously controlling so called unconscious body functions is not mind over matter. It's simply the forebrain poking the basal to do what it want's it to do.

As a child I could control my internal body temperature, to make it higher at least. Certainly not supernatural.

mind over body, more like

and since the whole thread is about the fact that the body controls the mind (ie: no free will) and not the other way around (ie:free will), it takes some importance

Boozy

12-03-2008, 01:03 PM

As a child I could control my internal body temperature, to make it higher at least. Certainly not supernatural.

Did I say it was "supernatural"?

No, I did not.

I used the colloquial phrase "mind over matter" which to me simply implies that the brain has a great deal of control over the body's sensory mechanisms. That is all.

Flyndaran

12-04-2008, 02:07 AM

Did I say it was "supernatural"?

No, I did not.

I used the colloquial phrase "mind over matter" which to me simply implies that the brain has a great deal of control over the body's sensory mechanisms. That is all.

Ahh. I've never hear that phrase used in any other way than to show that a human mind can override some aspect of physicality and usually of physics itself. I've certainly never heard it used to simply describe that the conscious mind can sometimes exert some control over normally unconscious aspects of the mind.

Flyndaran

12-04-2008, 02:12 AM

mind over body, more like

and since the whole thread is about the fact that the body controls the mind (ie: no free will) and not the other way around (ie:free will), it takes some importance

I would say that the mind is a product of the body, not that the body controls the mind.
No free will simply means that there is no aspect of yourself outside of body and body created mind.
Making choices is an aspect of life itself. Making difficult choices and sticking to made decisions is what is often called willpower or free will, but is also an aspect of complex life.

For example, growing up in an abusive household makes you FAR more likely to abuse, even if you don't want to. Calling it a moral weakness or inability to exert self-control is a copout to avoid dealing with the fact that our choices and even our very mind itself are compiled from our environment, and genetics and how those interact with the world through our behavior alone.

DrT

12-04-2008, 02:59 PM

I think Pedersen took it a tad further ;)
But he'll tell you better than I

Pedersen

12-05-2008, 08:04 PM

This one took me a few days of thought to figure out what I had said/done wrong, actually. Especially with a quote like this, I found myself having to ask "Am I actually wrong?"

We do know that meditation does have an effect on sensory input, and reactionary output. Good meditators can change a variety of physical actions in the body normally considered involuntary.

Right after reading that, I remembered reading of these feats accomplished by seemingly no more than the power of the mind. So, I took a couple days away while I pondered this, and re-read my posts looking for where I was wrong. It took me a while, but I found it.

In a purely secular argument, the brain houses the consciousness, and is the sole location of the consciousness. The conscious mind is incapable of directing the flows of eletricity within the brain (if you wish to claim it is, then please provide a citation). The end result is that the conscious mind is completely subject to the electrical flows within itself, thus removing free will.

That is where I was wrong, because I made an incomplete statement. I might still get it wrong, but I will now attempt to rectify.

In a purely secular argument, the brain houses the consciousness, and is the sole location of the consciousness. The consciousness is comprised of several physical pieces, but all of them are physical (in a purely secular argument). As a result, the conscious mind is no more nor less than the interaction of these pieces. Now, these pieces are amazingly powerful in what they can do. Their power, though, does not give them the ability to act independently of their components. The end result is that the conscious mind is completely subject to the physical components within itself, thus removing free will.

Suicide.
That would indeed sever my ties to the physical world, wouldn't it ?

Suicide simply stops the functioning of the body parts. Those body parts are still very much tied to the physical world. So, no, your ties are not severed.

So, you're infering that people commiting suicide didn't chose it ?

In case it is less than explicit so far, I'll state it explicitly now: Since there is no free will, any and all actions are unable to be chosen. This includes suicide.

One thing bothers me tremendously, DrT. I've posted the following logical progression twice before, and you have failed to address it. Disproving me is simple, since all you have to do is conclusively break this progression. I posted it on the first page of this thread. I posted it again a dozen or so posts ago (within the thread). I now post it again.

I await your debunking.

I have a body.
In that body is a brain.
The brain is exclusively composed of physical matter.
All physical matter is affected by other physical matter in some way.
The brain is responsible for all decision making processes.
The brain, being affected by physical matter, therefore has its decision making processes affected by physical matter.
Any idea of free will relies on the brain being able to make a choice independently of outside influence.
The brain is unable to completely ignore physical matter (its own or other) during decision making processes. If the electrical impulses move in one direction, one decision will be made. If they move differently, a different decision will be made.
Since the brain is incapable of acting independently from the physical matter that composes it, and since the brain is purely physical matter, and since free will requires the ability to act independently of outside influence, there is no free will.

DrT

12-06-2008, 02:27 PM

Pedersen

12-06-2008, 08:09 PM

I didn't debunk it because you're still saying, in that last sentence:
the brain cannot act independently of itself, therefore there is no free will.
since that makes no sense, I didn't bother noting it.

The physical matter making the brain IS the brain. you cannot take the two appart. Since you time and again do so (separate the object from its component) this is getting nowhere.

That, though, is the crux of the argument. I am not separating anything. I am openly admitting that the consciousness is part of the brain, the brain is physical, the consciousness is physical, and therefore the consciousness is subject to the dictates of the physical. Since it cannot become separate, it cannnot override the lower components, which means that there is no free will.

"In case it is less than explicit so far, I'll state it explicitly now: Since there is no free will, any and all actions are unable to be chosen. This includes suicide."

Well, now I though free will was the concept being questionned? You now ascertain its absence and use it to prove a point now....

I'd like to welcome you this debate, since it's obvious you're new here. One thing that might be of interest to you would be this quote I made way back when, the very first post in the thread, in fact:

Free will does not exist. In order for it to exist, the processes that lead to the making of a choice would have to be divorced from the processes occurring within the body, existing somewhere else. Unless you believe that it is something other than our brains which are responsible for making the choices that our body carries out, free will cannot exist.

I have stated this as nothing less than factual throughout the thread. And have yet to be shown that, in a purely secular debate, it can even possibly be wrong.

Well, if free will didn't exist, then how can you explain suicide ?

How do I explain walking, breathing, etc? All the same way: Our brains respond to various inputs, and perform outputs. In the case of suicides, the inputs leave the brain incapable of doing anything other than taking its own life.

that is saying: something cannot act indenpendantly of itself. do you see where it is wrong, or not ? Because if you don't there's no point in continuing.

So, you are stating that something can act independently of itself? That's a pretty fascinating assertion. Perhaps you have an example of this behavior to back it up?

In other words, no, I don't see anything wrong with that statement. Seems pretty factual to me.

yes, they are. Because I defined me, my life, as the flow of energy holding these parts together.
After suicide, the energy is gone. I am not. Therefore my ties are severed. What remains is just trash.

Interesting choice of words there. "After suicide, the energy is gonne. I am not." So, you are still here, though the energy is gone. In other words, your ties are not severed.

I can't help but wonder at what's next, though. After all, I didn't see where that one statement was wrong, aand you aserted there was no point in continuing if I didn't see the error. We shall see if that, too, was misread by me.

Oh, and Slyt, your best bet is going to be to book your flight to Newark International Airport in New Jersey, USA. Airline tickets are usually cheapest if you wait three weeks. So, I guess I'll see you in about a month, right? Let me know the flight, so I can make it easier to find and assault me :)