Free Will

[Popcorn Sutton]

I believe you and I don't believe you on that point. I believe that language is emergent because it seems to be a categorical process and I think that categorizing is emergent. What I believe is central to the physical nature of language and the mind is the generative process itself. Generation does not yield emergence, generation is a parallel process with emergence in my opinion. If you look at neuroscience you'll see that the areas associated with meaning are conveniently located between the occipital, parietal, and motor areas of the brain. For this reason, I believe that language serves as a process that transforms input between modalities, and is central for mental purposes.

Edited December 15, 2013 by Popcorn Sutton

[iNow]

Unless you're referring to the firing patterns of nerve cells and the way they're propagated chemically as "language," then I can't bring myself to agree. That's okay, though. I'm not necessarily correct and you're not necessarily incorrect. I just have a different impression of the system than you do.

[Popcorn Sutton]

I'm honored to hear you say that about my argument. I thought it was very clever of me to propose because I've never heard someone explain it that way before, not to self-aggrandize though, I am anonymous on these forums.

 

I am interested to hear your take on the system though. If you can't post it in this thread, maybe you'll consider making a new one because I think it would be a hot topic.

 

And yes I was making reference to a physical mind btw. A mind, IMO, is an emergent result of quantum effects in coordination with classical physical events, chemistry, parameters, relativity, and structure. When I refer to relativity, I'm referring to spatiotemporal proximity (not to Einstein, I don't know enough about his theories so my judgement is suspended on that topic). Chomsky says that no biologist would give you an account of the evolution of the eye without first telling you what an eye is. He also says that there oughta be a snowflake in there somewhere. I call that snowflake a unit of knowledge and I assume that it is roughly equivalent to a neuron though I believe that a neuron is a container for the unit itself. So I guess we agree in that sense.

Edited December 15, 2013 by Popcorn Sutton

[Popcorn Sutton]

Our decision is as random as the flip of a coin. Is this free will? No, not if it's random.

 

What is free will? That's the real question that needs to be answered in this thread before anyone can answer if we really have it. I think defining free will is MUCH harder than deciding if we have it.

 

I'm interested in this topic so forgive me for quoting older posts. I feel like I have to provide my input.

 

Kant says something along these lines- "The greatest thing that we have as humans is our freedom of will."

 

When I think about "free will", I like to break it into its two separate words, one being "free", the other being "will". "Will" your actions ever be "free"? What "will" you do? What would you do if they really were "free".

 

I have a family member in the police force who I spoke with regarding pattern detection technology. I would cite an episode of a british tv show (I think it's called "New Horizons") but I can't seem to find it atm. In the episode, they say something along these lines. "You may think that human behavior is quite random, but the evidence shows the contrary." They describe pattern detection (pattern recognition) technology that provides a "crime forecast". It's basically a prediction of where and when crime will occur based on previous activity, and it turns out that the software (which was developed by Stanford) predicts, with a greater than 50% degree of accuracy, where and when a crime will take place. Throughout the episode, they follow police officers while they use the technology to find drug dealers, gang activity, and grand theft auto. They also show its applications in finance and its importance in genetics. The point is that nothing inherent in nature is truly random. The system is deterministic, and it never, under any circumstances, diverges. If you are involved in criminal activity or find yourself within the proximity of criminal activity in any way, you may have already noticed that our cops, even local ones, seem to have a destination at a very specific time, and they race to the destination to get there on time. They are calling this "Progressive Policing", and I know, personally, that it has made things a lot more difficult on criminals. They say that it has reduced criminal activity in L.A. by about 60%. It's pretty amazing.

 

That being said, it supports the idea that human behavior is not random. If you actually think about it, there really is no way it could be. I associate "random" with "free". So if you did have a free will, and as Sam Harris points out here, if I ask you to think about any movie, you're not going to think about Pluto. If you did have free will, you could start speaking an alien language at any given moment without any prior knowledge.

 

If you were free, you wouldn't need to make decisions because you could, theoretically, choose every option, perform them all, and then go back in time and try other options.

 

If you were free, you could fly a ufo yesterday. You could switch fingers with someone in China who you've never seen before. You could speak in reverse and in parallel with speaking forward. The point is that we can't possibly do these things. There is no way that they could exist in this universe. What "will" you do? Whatever you "will" do, couldn't possibly be free. It really is an illusion.

This might be appropriate.

 

Linguistic Relativity.

 

From one of my early writings-

 

Quantum theorists have developed mathematical theories that account for entanglement of observation with experimentation (The Copenhagen Interpretation, Von Neumann's approach). In the process, they've realized that there is a problem. The mathematical theory has a causal gap between possible variations in classical-type states and the probing questions that affect them. A probing question has a finite number of possible outcomes, but, as Henry Stapp says, there are an infinite number of possible classical-type states. The mathematical structure of the theory does not specify what this question is, or even put statistical conditions on the possibilities. (Stapp, 2007)

The problem, that they so faithfully fill with a theory of "free will," is that there is a causal gap in the mathematical formula. This causal gap, in my opinion, should be filled with a causal theory. We, as linguists, need this theory of causality in order to produce a linguistically competent machine.

A full explanation of grammar would fill that gap in the mathematical theory through the use of statistically applicable equations based on previously described phenomena. The probing questions can be determined, and I think it is our duty as linguists, and computer scientists, to find out how they can be determined. To posit the existence of a "free will" is too easy and won't allow for a linguistically competent machine.

 

Stapp, H. (2007). Quantum Mechanical Theories of Consciousness. In V. a. Schneider, The Blackwell Companion to Consciousness (pp. 300-311). Malden: Blackwell

Brain, Minds and machines symposium.

Chomsky at Montreal.

[Moontanman]

I think free will is an illusion, we react to outside stimuli only in ways our prior experiences allow us to react.

 

When the first Europeans came to the new world many natives could not see the sailing ships, they had no way to make sense of what their eyes were telling them so it was ignored...

[ajaysinghgoshiyal]

http://www.amazon.com/OBSESSED-Compulsions-Creations-Jeffrey-Schwartz-ebook/dp/B00EO4R3SK

 

Schwartz is best known to the public as the man who coached Leonardo DiCaprio for his Oscar-nominated role as the OCD-afflicted billionaire Howard Hughes in The Aviator. But his extraordinary professional contribution, achieved through a lifetime of obsessive work, is a breakthrough therapy that has helped free thousands of OCD sufferers from their habitual behaviors, compulsions and irrational fears.

 

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=Q3EPeOcnEpMC&pg=PT176&lpg=PT176&dq=henry+stapp+jeffrey+schwartz&source=bl&ots=iZIO89tTLe&sig=RUI2Qswkq8TiHdUsbRWMupvLpvo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=h2GuUtTnDIOOrQeq6oCoCw&ved=0CGQQ6AEwDg#v=onepage&q=henry%20stapp%20jeffrey%20schwartz&f=false

 

Read Quantum Zeno effect

 

http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/PTRS.pdf

 

This is Really Hard.

Edited December 16, 2013 by ajaysinghgoshiyal

[hoola]

free will at it's most profound is the ability to think. We can think, but with limitations. So, we have limited free will, which means we do indeed, possess free will. What are those limitations? Various and many, depending on the individual being, as existing as a fruit fly, monkey or man. Regardless, free will exists, and in various proportions accorded by the particular species involved and their relative brain sizes, and the overall fitness of said brains. I think there is a fundamental limit to free will, and that is set by the underlying logic that allows maths to function. I think the free will limit is (usually) set by the fact that much information is not expressed within out universe, but exists only in a theoretical sense, but nonetheless exists mathematically, or even we could not imagine it..... The beauty of the human mind is that we alone are able to "see" across that divide between logic and illogic and imagine things that couldn't possibly exist.....so we have a sort of "super free-will" with being able to "straddle both sides of the fence".. But to even us or any sentient being in this universe, there is a limit to what can be imagined, as set by the total mathematical informational content of our particular universe.. although I see this content as constantly on the increase, as maths are constantly on the increase. Our ability to imagine is rather limited, so no worry about sensing any actual restriction to human thought. This perhaps may become an issue with the self-aware quantum computers....

[ajaysinghgoshiyal]

http://philpapers.org/rec/SCHQPI

 

This is also good

 

 

It is the very same article on another web site

[hoola]

I went onto the philpapers and will have to re-read it a few more times to get through the dense text. The heading of the text listed "quantum physics....." this makes one think that quantum processes are involved in thought process. I recently read about the genes within brain cells turning on and off in a digital fashion and being a major component in thought processes, as well as the traditional electrochemical system. That is pretty outrageous. And to imagine quantum processes having a hand in thought is even moreso. Are we at least partly "quantum computers" ?

[ajaysinghgoshiyal]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger_equation

 

Line 02 describes how the quantum state of some physical system changes with time

-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

 

Line 12 this physical argument is now known to be fundamentally misleading

-

 

 

So there are no limits to any thing.

So maths cannot define every thing.

[imatfaal]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger_equation

 

Line 02 describes how the quantum state of some physical system changes with time

-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

 

Line 12 this physical argument is now known to be fundamentally misleading

-

 

 

So there are no limits to any thing.

So maths cannot define every thing.

 

the part that is misleading is the old Heisenburg microscope heuristic nothing more - the uncertainty principle is not seriously challenged as it follows from the maths that are at the base of quantum mechanics.

[Popcorn Sutton]

I think this sums it up very well.

 

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152107331692726&set=a.10150126121157726.302978.5978057725&type=1

Daniel Dennett takes a compatibilist view on the subject (but I feel that his argument wasn't convincing).

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDEQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DaKLAbWFCh1E&ei=2A7EUtz3DOjQyAHP4YHQCw&usg=AFQjCNGfJThcNQpk3Y-EczY6MMHiLWeEdw&sig2=DSGlVT5lH18fbKQMYKxQow&bvm=bv.58187178,d.aWc

 

I am biased towards Sam Harris.

[overtone]

The arguments against free will's "existence" seem to me to fail on one of two grounds:

 

either they presume any proposed freedom of will lies in a supernatural realm independent of physical reality, and no such realm exists,

 

or they believe that since the nature of physical law requires that there be a chain of certain cause and effect connecting any two physical states of the universe at all levels, so that all future states are fixed by the status of the current one at the lowest level, everything at all higher levels is epiphenomenal, caused and inevitably fixed by the lowest level status of the distant past and therefore not "free".

 

The one presumption is unwarranted - free will is often and reasonably held to be an emergent, higher level property of a material entity within a completely natural and law-bound universe, adn that is the free will one must demonstrate to be illusory.

 

The other is a misunderstanding based in a complacent, unalert conception of physical law and physical status. This is particularly evident when people are using modern scientific evidence to argue against freedom of the will; say, interpreting the results of modern neuroscience - that decisions are made before reports of conscious awareness of them can be recorded, etc - as implying no role for freedom of the will.

 

The basic insight is that substrates do not cause patterns. This is visible at very simple, low levels - if you want to predict the fate of a baseball currently ten feet off the ground, say, a complete description of every seperate atom in it at a given moment will do you little good - you need information from the next higher level of interaction, the velocities and so forth, patterns formed by the collective behaviors of these atoms over time. The atoms do not cause these patterns - the cause and effect explanation makes sense only at the proper level, the level of a pattern of atoms called a "ball" and its motions.

 

Dreams cause behaviors, the recognitions of the conscious mind change the behavor of the organism weeks afterwards - the implications of these common observations should not be underestimated.

[Popcorn Sutton]

Here's a paper I wrote some time back. I thought it was relevant.

 

Why We Cannot Believe that the Free Will exists

 

 

Upon revisiting Quantum Theory, and through my research in Linguistics, I have not found one

bit of empirical evidence that would lead me to conclude for the existence of the “free will.” I,

personally, would love to know that there is such a thing as free will, and that our actions and lives in

general are not pre-determined. However, recent science has provided evidence that may cause one to

conclude that it is determined. Evidence seems to suggest that the future can actually affect the present

(Freeman, “Through the Wormhole”). Throughout my reading of these two papers, “Quantum

Mechanical Theories of Consciousness,” and “Quantum Physics in Neuroscience and Psychology: A

Neurophysical Model of Mind-Brain Interaction,” I have found various times where they draw

unwarranted conclusions. My purpose in writing this paper is to show how things may actually be

deterministic when it comes to the mind and the brain, and how the “free will” may be a process that is

pre-determined by Neural and Quantum Mechanical events.

 

Quantum mechanics was initiated by a discovery made by Max Planck in 1900. Planck found that

the distribution over frequencies of the radiant energy emitted from a tiny hole in a hollow container

did not match the predictions that classical physics had made. He found that the empirical data he

gathered could be accounted for by assuming that the radiant energy associated with each given

frequency was concentrated in units, or quanta, with the amount of energy in a unit being directly

proportional to the frequency of the radiation that carried it. The constant of proportionality that he

measured has been called “Planck’s constant.” (Stapp, 2007) It wasn’t until 1925 when Heisenberg

found a way to correctly predict the phenomena by transforming classical mechanics into a new theory

by a procedure of “quantization.” This procedure replaced the numbers that specified the structure of

the classically conceived material universe by actions. These actions are associated with the process of

acquiring information, or knowledge about the location of an object.

 

The problem with this method of interpretation is that the action of obtaining knowledge

actually affects the state that is being probed, or in other words, the act of acquiring knowledge about a

system becomes entangled in a non-classical way with the information-bearing quantum mechanical

state of the system that is being probed. This raised huge technical difficulties. The conceptual

adjustments that were needed were mostly worked out by Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli, and Born, at Bohr’s

institute in Copenhagen. The framework created by these physicists is called “The Copenhagen

Interpretation.”

 

Bohr described the purpose of the Copenhagen Interpretation as a descriptive tool to account

not for the real essence of phenomena, but to track down the possible relations between multifold

aspects of our experience. (Bohr, 1934) He says that “the appropriate physical interpretation of the

symbolic quantum mechanical formalism amounts only to prediction of determinate or statistical

character, pertaining to phenomena appearing under conditions defined by classical physics concepts.”

(Bohr, 1958) As a linguist, I find this interesting. I, for the sake of linguistic computationality, would love

to conclude for a deterministic nature of reality. This would clearly help us in creating a linguistically

competent machine if we could just come up with a formula (most likely predictive based off

determined qualities of speech interpretation) that accounts for our natural ability to use and process

speech. My research into grammar seems to be pointing in the direction of a probabilistic, or

statistical, means of speech interpretation that must be deterministic in nature. Anyway, the

problem that the Copenhagen Interpretation solves, at least for all practical purposes, is the joint and

consistent use of the two mutually inconsistent descriptions of nature posed by our theories of physics.

The solution is to divide nature into two parts, one being the observational mechanisms (like the

body, brain, and mind of the human setting up the experiment) used to acquire experiential feedback,

and the other part is the system being probed by the classically conceived and described observing

system. The concepts of classical physics are taken to be applicable in principle right down to the atomic

level. But according to the quantum precepts, the quantum mathematical description must be used for

any properties of the atomic entities upon which observable features of nature sensitively depend. This

separation between the two parts is called “The Heisenberg Cut.”

 

On one side of the cut, there is our experience based classical model of the phenomena being

probed, while on the other side is the quantum description, or a roughly continuous smear of classical-
type states. These two descriptions operate in parallel. Through the quantum smear of classical states,

the theory ultimately produces statistical predictions about possible experiences described in the

conceptual framework of classical physics. However, in order to extract statistical predictions about

possible experiences, some specific probing question must be physically posed. This probing question

must have a countable set of experientially distinct alternative possible responses, “countable”

meaning that the responses can be placed in one-to-one correspondence with whole numbers, or a

finite subset of these numbers. “But the number of possible classically describable possibilities is not

countable,” Stapp states, “there is a continuous infinity of such possibilities.” (Stapp, 2007) It is because

of this that some decision must be made as to which of the possible probing questions will be physically posed.

 

It is at this point in the experimentation that I see the application of certain linguistic

mechanisms that, for the sake of computation, should be seen as deterministic. I draw this

conclusion because based on the knowledge that one has obtained by this point through

experimentation, one would determine possible probing questions. These probing questions can be

determined linguistically by assessing the possible co-occurrence of linguistic items in regards to

linguistically described phenomena. The only room for “free will” at this point would pertain to the

choice of which probing question would be used.

 

Stapp says that “the mathematical structure of the theory does not specify what this question is,

or even put statistical conditions on the possibilities.” In an ideal theory of grammar, there is a

mathematical formula we can apply to specify certain linguistic

occurrences using statistical conditions to determine possibilities. The problem is that current linguistic

theory does not account for the possibility of linguistic determinism. It is on these grounds that he

claims that the mathematical theory is dynamically incomplete in that it fails to specify which probing

question will be posed, when it will be posed, and what response will then appear. The theory does,

however, assign a statistical weight (probability) to each of the alternative possible responses to any

question that could be posed. Hereforth, the physical posing of a probing question will be referred to as

“Process 1,” and the mathematically specified evolution of the quantum state in accordance with the

rules specified by the quantization procedure will be referred to as “Process 2.” (Von Neumann) Process

1 events intervene abruptly, from time to time, in the orderly evolution specified by Process 2. So how

does the Copenhagen quantum theory resolve this critical problem of the mathematical

indeterminacy of the choices of the needed Process 1 probing actions? They do it with “Quantum Agents."

 

Even with the application of an ideal theory of grammar, there is still the problem of making a conscious choice

as to which probing question will be used. This problem of indeterminacy is resolved in orthodox

Copenhagen quantum mechanics by adopting a pragmatic stance. The theory is considered to be a set of

rules useful to a community of communicating, conscious, observing agents embedded in a physical

universe. The difficulty, which is that the known laws do not determine which of the possible probing

questions will be physically posed, is neatly resolved by saying that this openness allows the conscious

agents to choose freely which probing questions they will physically pose. (Stapp, 2007) This conclusion

is, in my opinion, unwarranted. And even worse, they conclude that because of this ability that

conscious agents have to “make choices freely,” the causal gap in the mathematically described

structure is filled. The reason this conclusion is unwarranted is because it assumes free will in itself. It’s

circular reasoning. I would argue, from my linguistic perspective, that we do not have as much freedom

in choosing which probing questions will exist, I would argue that these probing questions emerge from

the knowledge we obtain through various cognitive mechanisms. One cognitive mechanism would be the

act of describing the phenomena, in which case we can take the words in the description and apply a

statistical equation to determine a probable response to those words. Given enough variations in the

description of the phenomena, or the implications one would acquire through thought, I could see how

many different probing questions could be formulated. After these probing questions have been

developed, it is a choice that needs to be made, but to assume that we make these choices through the

“free will” is flawed because it assumes the very freedom it describes.

 

To try to account for this “freedom,” Stapp goes on to explain existing quantum theories of

interactive dualism. Interactive dualism states that there are two separate and distinct realities, one

being mental, and the other being physical. Classical Interactive dualism has been argued for over 300

years now in that it makes these two flawed assumptions, it postulates the existence of two entirely

different kinds of things, but provides no understanding of how they interact, or if they even can, and

that the physical description is, by itself, already causally complete, giving a completely deterministic

account of the evolution in time of every physically described entity. This means that mental realities

have nothing to do, and no possibility of influencing anything physical. (Stapp, 2007). Quantum

interactive dualism evades both of these objections.

 

One of the answers it provides is that the form of interaction between the mentally and

physically described aspects of nature is specified in Von Neumann’s account of the measurement

process. Von Neumann made a careful mathematical description of the fundamental theories of

quantum physics, and of how they are to be employed in practice. Quantum theory was specifically

designed to be a tool that allows physicists to make computations that connect their experiences about

setting up probing experiments to their expectations about the observable responses to these probing

questions. The crucial point is that the physically-described laws of quantum mechanics do not fix the

times at which the physical Process 1 probing actions occur, or what these physical probing actions

will be. This is the reason why the conscious “free choices” of the agents were brought into play by the

founders of quantum mechanics. These conscious choices control the timings of the physical Process 1

events studied, and this connection entails, in principle, the capacity of these psychologically described

aspects of the conscious agents to control, via quantum Zeno holding actions, certain

physically described features of the world.

 

The quantum Zeno holding affect refers to the paradox that an unstable particle will never

decay while being observed. The act of repeating a probing question continuously actually causes it

to become more stable. One can nearly “freeze” the evolution of a system by measuring it frequently

enough in its known initial state. I think this is interesting, because I know from a linguistic view that if

you do not use a language, you lose it, much like any other knowledge you have. People describe the

brain like it’s a muscle; it needs to be used in order to maintain its knowledge. Maybe this has a direct

physical correlate with the quantum Zeno holding effect, in that if you continuously probe a bit of

knowledge, it strengthens it. Maybe knowledge directly correlates to physical particles. If it does, I’d like

to say that it is stored through particle relativity, or the probability of one particle being located relative

to another particle. I make this assumption based on a grammatical hypothesis in that one linguistic item

most often occurs with another linguistic item. (You + I, Are + am, John + he, etc.)

 

I feel that the causal gap between observation and conscious probing should not be filled with a

theory of “freedom,” but rather, a theory of causality. Just like how our previous belief in pure classical

physicalism held until the emergence of empirical phenomena that didn’t abide by the classicalist

laws, I think the problem of “free will” will hold. It seems to be too easy to fill that causal gap with a theory

of free will. Instead, I would like to attempt an explanation based on environmental factors. There are

many environmental factors that can cause one to decide that it is not the right time or place to use an

experimental probing question. These questions can most likely be formulated probabilistically given

linguistic descriptions of the phenomena. The problem is that at 3 in the morning, without the proper

utilities, one can decide to go home and get some sleep. But, it is only within that approximate context

that one will make that decision.

 

Given all the information that your brain is progressively processing, it records factors

through observation, and given those factors, “makes decisions.” I see decisions as multiple actions

(linguistic or otherwise) that one could possibly take. Given the knowledge of the actions, one will only

need to know how to make a decision. Making the decision is another process that the brain performs,

and I’d assume that most often it makes educated decisions (meaning that there are factors being

considered). Making educated decisions requires knowledge of the factors that may influence the

decision, and as long as that knowledge is present, you can weigh it. This weight, which is described by

the Copenhagen Interpretation as a probability, will cause priority. If one prioritizes, then they make a

temporal list of which decisions to perform based on highest priority and the flow of time.

 

It seems to me that it puts things in order based on context. It is this very quality that would allow an explanatory

theory of grammar to show how we can use context, or create context that we can use,

to formulate the most probable response. The most probable response always seems to be formed

using the most important information and linking it together with other linguistic items to form a

grammatical, linguistically coherent, item. I think that all of these items can equate to bits of knowledge,

and knowledge may equate to particles and their placement. If you don’t use your knowledge, or probe

it, you may lose it, or the particle may decay. This could cause fragmented knowledge or could even

cause us to forget something completely.

 

Quantum theory is needed to account for the structure of the brain on the microscopic level,

and Stapp, Schwartz, and Beauregard attempt to explain why in their article “Quantum Physics in

Neuroscience and Psychology: a Neurophysical model of mind-brain interaction.” They say that on the

ionic level, within the microtubules that are only one nanometer in diameter, a calcium ion cannot exist

in one particular location at a particular time, instead, because there are so many ions on such a small

scale, they apply Von Neumann’s approach to show that the brain, on this small level, exists as a smear

of classical-type states all the way up to the macroscopic level. (Jeffrey M Schwartz, 2005) This suggests

that the brain never exists in one particular location at one point in time, but instead, without the use of

Process 1 mechanisms, it exists in many classical-type states simultaneously. This, in their view, accounts

for the multiple possibilities of classical states macroscopically.

 

They also posit the use of the free will because there is a causal gap in the mathematical

structures provided by the Copenhagen Interpretation and Von Neumann’s approach. Once again,

a conclusion that I feel is unwarranted. Ultimately, what I have tried to show here is that there are

alternatives to the free will. In fact, I think that the free will is something we should be terrified of, as

scientists. The idea that something can occur freely in nature just doesn’t add up. How would we be able

to formulate any theories of physical or linguistic predictability if this were the case? What I’ve always

learned is that no matter how much we believe in freedom, it has always been a belief. I don’t feel free

at all, I feel extremely confined to my environment, to my body, to my country, and to my habits. To

postulate the possibility of freedom is understandable, but to draw any conclusions of its existence are,

at this point, fallacious. We have no empirically testable theories of it that will conclusively show that

it does exist, and I think that we are much closer to proving determinism (neurologically) than this so

called “free will.”

 

[Wso]

Humans have no more free will then a rock. Allow me to attempt to prove this, please feel free to disagree or call me out on anything wrong in this reply.

 

1. Free will is making decisions without any kind of fate or destiny

2. No type of energy can make decisions, it acts based on a set of principles (a series of if thens)

3. Humans are made up entirely of atoms and various forms of energy. Atoms are energy so humans are made up entirely of energy

4. Humans can not make decisions because the energy that makes us up can not make decisions

 

Hopefully this makes sense to everyone here, again, if you find any flaws in this logic please let me know.

Edited January 7, 2014 by Wso

[ajaysinghgoshiyal]

 

the part that is misleading is the old Heisenburg microscope heuristic nothing more - the uncertainty principle is not seriously challenged as it follows from the maths that are at the base of quantum mechanics.

I agree. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I think this sums it up very well.

 

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152107331692726&set=a.10150126121157726.302978.5978057725&type=1

 

Daniel Dennett takes a compatibilist view on the subject (but I feel that his argument wasn't convincing).

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDEQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DaKLAbWFCh1E&ei=2A7EUtz3DOjQyAHP4YHQCw&usg=AFQjCNGfJThcNQpk3Y-EczY6MMHiLWeEdw&sig2=DSGlVT5lH18fbKQMYKxQow&bvm=bv.58187178,d.aWc

 

I am biased towards Sam Harris.

I am biased towards Jeffrey Schwartz. Ever heard of him.??

The arguments against free will's "existence" seem to me to fail on one of two grounds:

 

either they presume any proposed freedom of will lies in a supernatural realm independent of physical reality, and no such realm exists,

 

or they believe that since the nature of physical law requires that there be a chain of certain cause and effect connecting any two physical states of the universe at all levels, so that all future states are fixed by the status of the current one at the lowest level, everything at all higher levels is epiphenomenal, caused and inevitably fixed by the lowest level status of the distant past and therefore not "free".

 

The one presumption is unwarranted - free will is often and reasonably held to be an emergent, higher level property of a material entity within a completely natural and law-bound universe, adn that is the free will one must demonstrate to be illusory.

 

The other is a misunderstanding based in a complacent, unalert conception of physical law and physical status. This is particularly evident when people are using modern scientific evidence to argue against freedom of the will; say, interpreting the results of modern neuroscience - that decisions are made before reports of conscious awareness of them can be recorded, etc - as implying no role for freedom of the will.

 

The basic insight is that substrates do not cause patterns. This is visible at very simple, low levels - if you want to predict the fate of a baseball currently ten feet off the ground, say, a complete description of every seperate atom in it at a given moment will do you little good - you need information from the next higher level of interaction, the velocities and so forth, patterns formed by the collective behaviors of these atoms over time. The atoms do not cause these patterns - the cause and effect explanation makes sense only at the proper level, the level of a pattern of atoms called a "ball" and its motions.

 

Dreams cause behaviors, the recognitions of the conscious mind change the behavor of the organism weeks afterwards - the implications of these common observations should not be underestimated.

The arguments against free will's "existence" seem to me to fail on one of two grounds:

 

either they presume any proposed freedom of will lies in a supernatural realm independent of physical reality, and no such realm exists,

 

or they believe that since the nature of physical law requires that there be a chain of certain cause and effect connecting any two physical states of the universe at all levels, so that all future states are fixed by the status of the current one at the lowest level, everything at all higher levels is epiphenomenal, caused and inevitably fixed by the lowest level status of the distant past and therefore not "free".

 

The one presumption is unwarranted - free will is often and reasonably held to be an emergent, higher level property of a material entity within a completely natural and law-bound universe, adn that is the free will one must demonstrate to be illusory.

 

The other is a misunderstanding based in a complacent, unalert conception of physical law and physical status. This is particularly evident when people are using modern scientific evidence to argue against freedom of the will; say, interpreting the results of modern neuroscience - that decisions are made before reports of conscious awareness of them can be recorded, etc - as implying no role for freedom of the will.

 

The basic insight is that substrates do not cause patterns. This is visible at very simple, low levels - if you want to predict the fate of a baseball currently ten feet off the ground, say, a complete description of every seperate atom in it at a given moment will do you little good - you need information from the next higher level of interaction, the velocities and so forth, patterns formed by the collective behaviors of these atoms over time. The atoms do not cause these patterns - the cause and effect explanation makes sense only at the proper level, the level of a pattern of atoms called a "ball" and its motions.

 

Dreams cause behaviors, the recognitions of the conscious mind change the behavor of the organism weeks afterwards - the implications of these common observations should not be underestimated.

My view as well. They call it a user illusion. This is materialist reductionism at its very core. Like I just said. Benjamin Libet said it years ago. It is called the readiness potential. This is very simple Quantum Physics and also subatomic particles. Also called mindful awareness. The power of the tangible over the intangible.

Humans have no more free will then a rock. Allow me to attempt to prove this, please feel free to disagree or call me out on anything wrong in this reply.

 

1. Free will is making decisions without any kind of fate or destiny

2. No type of energy can make decisions, it acts based on a set of principles (a series of if thens)

3. Humans are made up entirely of atoms and various forms of energy. Atoms are energy so humans are made up entirely of energy

4. Humans can not make decisions because the energy that makes us up can not make decisions

 

Hopefully this makes sense to everyone here, again, if you find any flaws in this logic please let me know.

You are totally wrong. Please google a term known as Materialist Reductionism to understand my view.

Here's a paper I wrote some time back. I thought it was relevant.

 

Why We Cannot Believe that the Free Will exists

 

 

You are totally wrong. Please google something called Materialist Reductionism to understand my point.

Edited January 7, 2014 by ajaysinghgoshiyal

[brockw69]

Free will does exist, otherwise this entire thread would not exist. Every person whom has posted in this thread has done so by choice. I do not understand how a series of quantum mechanical processes have 'caused' people to turn on their computer, open their browser, arrive at this web location and then post.

As for energy not making choices, what causes energy to be transferred? For the most part, the energy that is within us chooses to do a series of things that causes energy to transfer. For example, some people make a choice to burn some coal to create either heat to heat water to steam to drive turbines that drive alternators that produce electricity or to create coke which is mixed with iron to make steel. All these things are choices and people, generally, make the easiest choice that enables them to meat their needs. Despite the science on climate change, the vast majority of the human race is living in an 'Iron Age' of burning fossil fuels such as coal and oil to create heat and steal. To choose one argument over another is another example of choice, although, often we choose the argument that we understand better rather than the one that seems senseless. To choose renewable energy over fossil fuels is wrought with illusion as [currently] there is no way of using solar, wind, thermal or fermented fuels without the aid of apparatus made of aluminium, glass or steel, all of which require fossil fuels to make or are made up of minerals et al.

Additionally, the post about neuroscience being a non science is 100% wrong. Psychiatry on the other hand is mostly non science as there are few to none tests that can be performed, e.g. blood tests, to make a diagnosis of any psychiatric condition. Psychiatry is the enemy of free will as it sets about controlling humans using drugs. Ask any psychiatrist how many patients s/he has had and of those patients, how many have been cured of their condition using current psychiatric practice. I know of many psychiatrists whom work in their field attempting to undo the damage other psychiatrists have caused or the patient has caused themselves, i.e. substance dependence. Then we can take a look at "The Thud Experiment". [Google it]. One of two well known experiments that debunk psychiatry. Anyway, enough about psychiatry.

For those whom have an eye for detail, I have made two spelling errors [English-Australia] in this post. I did so by choice and the spell cheque program has failed to correct them. Actually, now I have made three spelling errors by choice.

Free will does exist, otherwise this debate would not exist. We all have the choice as to wether or not we read, take part or ignore this thread.

Thank you,

"Live Long and Prosper...Bazinga", Dr Sheldon Cooper.

Regards,
Warren
<->

[ajaysinghgoshiyal]

Free will does exist, otherwise this entire thread would not exist. Every person whom has posted in this thread has done so by choice. I do not understand how a series of quantum mechanical processes have 'caused' people to turn on their computer, open their browser, arrive at this web location and then post.

 

As for energy not making choices, what causes energy to be transferred? For the most part, the energy that is within us chooses to do a series of things that causes energy to transfer. For example, some people make a choice to burn some coal to create either heat to heat water to steam to drive turbines that drive alternators that produce electricity or to create coke which is mixed with iron to make steel. All these things are choices and people, generally, make the easiest choice that enables them to meat their needs. Despite the science on climate change, the vast majority of the human race is living in an 'Iron Age' of burning fossil fuels such as coal and oil to create heat and steal. To choose one argument over another is another example of choice, although, often we choose the argument that we understand better rather than the one that seems senseless. To choose renewable energy over fossil fuels is wrought with illusion as [currently] there is no way of using solar, wind, thermal or fermented fuels without the aid of apparatus made of aluminium, glass or steel, all of which require fossil fuels to make or are made up of minerals et al.

Additionally, the post about neuroscience being a non science is 100% wrong. Psychiatry on the other hand is mostly non science as there are few to none tests that can be performed, e.g. blood tests, to make a diagnosis of any psychiatric condition. Psychiatry is the enemy of free will as it sets about controlling humans using drugs. Ask any psychiatrist how many patients s/he has had and of those patients, how many have been cured of their condition using current psychiatric practice. I know of many psychiatrists whom work in their field attempting to undo the damage other psychiatrists have caused or the patient has caused themselves, i.e. substance dependence. Then we can take a look at "The Thud Experiment". [Google it]. One of two well known experiments that debunk psychiatry. Anyway, enough about psychiatry.

 

For those whom have an eye for detail, I have made two spelling errors [English-Australia] in this post. I did so by choice and the spell cheque program has failed to correct them. Actually, now I have made three spelling errors by choice.

 

Free will does exist, otherwise this debate would not exist. We all have the choice as to wether or not we read, take part or ignore this thread.

 

Thank you,

 

"Live Long and Prosper...Bazinga", Dr Sheldon Cooper.

 

Regards,

Warren

<->

I have said exactly the same thing on this forum under a different name but no one seems to understand. It is because their brain is seemingly hard wired to think in old ways and that leads them to falsely reject any new information and to evade reality. To such people I would say that without a brain a mind would not exist and that the choices that they make are not their doing and that they are not morally responsible for their thoughts let alone their actions and that raping or killing someone is not their fault. Consider a particular scenario.

 

A person who has Obsessive Compulsive disorder is forced by his brain to do things which are irrational to his rational mind. Yet he can make the choice via his mind given that he accepts its power to veto that very action that his brain his telling him. It is a very simple case of Free Will versus Free Wont.

 

To refrain from an act is no less an act than to commit one.

Charles Sherrington

1947 AD

Edited January 7, 2014 by ajaysinghgoshiyal

[Popcorn Sutton]

You guys have to provide citations. It's part of the rules for this forum. "Google it" does not suffice.

[ajaysinghgoshiyal]

You guys have to provide citations. It's part of the rules for this forum. "Google it" does not suffice.

You want me to provide the name of the author of the book that is the original source? If so that is definitely against forum rules if i am right?

[Popcorn Sutton]

I'll let the moderators chime in on this one.

[ajaysinghgoshiyal]

I'll let the moderators chime in on this one.

Sure. I hope they allow it.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Popcorn and others

 

You are correct that citation should be more inclusive (yours in #89 could have been a bit more explanatory - the authors of the original articles front and centre perhaps) - a link is not necessary but can sometimes be very useful in the absence of a proper citation

 

For everyone's guidance we do not allow links included for the purpose of driving members off site to understand the argument - see new rule 2.7 And when a link is given to a book or paper we prefer that it is not Amazon or some other shop - try the publishers or a review.

 

Finally Ajay will not be replying - he was banned as a sockpuppet of AJS, who was a sockpuppet of ... who was a sockpuppet of...who was a sockpuppet of Arjun Deepak Shriram who was banned upon his own request during a suspension for numerous rule breaches.