My problem with Free Will

[Darrell Hougen]

Darrell wrote:

Now, one could argue that reality is actually infinitely complex at any point in time, but I think that leads to other philosophical problems. The only alternative that I see left is to argue that the evolution of states must have an element of randomness to it.

end quote

If something exists, it must be definite and bounded. That’s the anti-chaos theory mentioned below. This universe has no Harry Potter’s “Hogwarts.” That may be why we enjoy fantasy so much. Is the concept *fantasy* infinite?

Your diagram got me thinking and searching Darryl. The only attribution I have from my archives for the following is, “I posed Keyser's question to my friend and following is his reply. See how complicated things are:-)”

Here is what the person labeled “my friend” or “Gayles friend” said:

I don't think I'm borrowing the infinity of time and applying it to space. Nevertheless, I'm not being completely precise, and there is theoretical work to be done on these subjects. Still, the main point is that the predetermination of events has no fatalistic significance of how to treat consciousness -- there's always a mixture of things that can be changed and things that cannot. As I understand chaos theory, they treat physics classically as involving infinitely divisible space, continuous measurements in real numbers. The simplest model for a chaotic process is shifting a transcendental number like Pi to the left and truncating it, playing out over time the digits of an infinitely non-repeating series. Most real numbers measuring position are of this infinite-information variety. Something like that shifting happens in non-linear interactions, described as chaotic processes. In these, no matter how many decimal places are carried in a predictive computation, there is something in the remaining places which is not randomly canceling out over time (as they do in linear systems), but accumulating into unpredictable effects. We can say that the past contains the whole future, but hides the exact content of the future from any process smaller than the entire universe, and also that the past contains an inherent disorder in what the future will be, some random dispersions of events -- the fact this is all contained in the past doesn't change its consequences. There is a mixture of order and chaos to things. Thermodynamics involves a kind of preservation of disorder in systems. Randomness can be defined in terms of whether subsets of the past data can predict the rest of the data, whether it is ordered or not, or can be captured with a compression algorithm, has a recognizable pattern. Quantum mechanics has a different view of some intrinsic probability and chance created moment by moment, in a world with only finitely defined, discontinuous, quantified measurements. There could be a mathematical equivalence between these cases, and if not exactly, at least that there might not be much difference to anything whether randomness is a chaotic process playing back an infinity of hidden information in the past or is an intrinsic uncertainty in each moment. There is a similar state in which no subset of the universe can predict everything that will happen and there is dispersion in what happens, gases remaining dispersed etc. Freedom of will is definitely not pure randomness, but it may be useful to consider an evolutionary process combining both random inputs and predetermined filtering, as one type of adaptive search method.

The difficult question in free will is the one little discussed, which is what difference does it make whether you have it? Or as Dennett says, why is it worth wanting? Surely being random doesn't make it so, but exactly what does do so remains to be fully elaborated. It appears to at least involve adaptivity, goal-direction; if we want to change a condition in the past, or solve a problem, we can do so. However, we can't do so predictably, perhaps because of the complexity of the problems we solve. It's like a chess playing computer that works by learning, instead of preprogrammed strategies. You have to be free to learn from mistakes. A combination of both short term failures and successes is involved in long-term success.

And then,

From: Keyser Soze <keysersozekill@yahoo.com>

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: Re: ATL: Determinism/adaptation

Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 16:33:15 -0800 (PST)

Gayle, Gayle's friend, and anyone else who is interested,

My nit-pickerishness comes from hearing too many scientists confuse many of the issues involved in such discussions. In general usage, "chaos" means utter confusion or disorder. But it also refers to complex mathematical theories and systems which are used to predict or explain seemingly unpredictable - chaotic - events. Chaos is this sense would have the opposite meaning of its use in the first sense (shouldn't it be called Anti-Chaos Theory?). Unfortunately, I have heard many people speak as if the two meanings are interchangeable.

In this regard there is a further tendency to view the limits of our ability to measure accurately as evidence of randomness in existence. Philosophically imprecise theoreticians seem to confuse attempted explanations of reality with reality itself. The terms "chance," "random," "uncertainty," "disorder," and "unpredictable" are often implied to be metaphysical attributes of the entities being described rather than evaluations of our current epistemological (or scientific) limitations. Objects do not "possess unpredictability." The inability to predict strictly refers to our state of observation and knowledge.

Disorder means that something didn't behave in the way we expected it to, in which case there are two possible conclusions: the behavior contradicts reality, or we had imprecise expectations. I think a good example of bad philosophy is the oft cited wave/particle "duality" of light. There's nothing wrong with identifying both aspects of a photon's behavior, but to come to the conclusion that a photon exists in contradictory states is bad science based on bad philosophy. I am by no means an expert on the subject, but Lewis Little's Theory of Elementary Waves, which may or may not be valid, is at least an original, rational approach to the problem. Rather than believing that a photon's behavior reveals metaphysical uncertainty (by traveling two different courses at the same time), Little's science starts from the assumption that the contradiction reveals an error in our understanding.

One liter of alcohol added to one liter of water does not equal two liters of combined substance. A bad philosophy of science would lead to the conclusion that one plus one does not equal two. A rational view would be that we did not first determine a molecular standard of value for the experiment, and that if we were to do so, the correct conclusion would be an understanding of how displacement was involved in the experiment. So I'm more apt to agree with Gayle's friend's statement that, "The past contains the whole future, but hides the exact content of the future from any process smaller than the entire universe," but I have yet to be convinced that, "The past contains an inherent disorder in what the future will be, some random dispersions of events -- the fact this is all contained in the past doesn't change its consequences. There is a mixture of order and chaos to things."

Determinism is Fatalism.

The Soze

Hi Peter,

Thank you for that post. It contains a lot of intelligent discussion of the subject.

I tend to agree that, "If something exists, it must be definite and bounded," but I think that statement applies as much to the infinitesimal as to the infinite. At least, that is the conclusion I have tentatively reached after reading the part that Gayle's friend wrote. His example of a chaotic system gradually shifting off the digits of a real number caused me to recognize the fallacy of thinking that deterministic chaos is possible. If it were, then it should be possible to construct a system containing an unbounded quantity of information. The fallacy of determinism is the fallacy of believing such systems are possible.

The simplest example of attempting to encode too much information in a physical system is the example of a block of aluminum which is cut to exactly the right length to encode the works of Shakespeare. Assume that the block was roughly one meter long with the fractional part being an ASCII code for the letters in the words on the pages of the collected works of Shakespeare. Then, by cutting the block to the proper length, the works of Shakespeare could be encoded. Clearly, there aren't enough molecules in a block of aluminum to accomplish the goal. One would quickly get to the point that adding one more molecule would make the block too long, but taking one away would make it too short. A similar situation would arise if one were to attempt to use the mass of the block rather than the length.

Apparently, a similar situation would exist in a nonlinear (chaotic) dynamical system. Imagine a system in which the initial condition of the system was given by specifying a single measurement, x. Two neighboring starting points could be given by x1 and x2 = x1 + epsilon, where epsilon is a small number greater than zero. In the theory of deterministic chaos, the neighboring trajectories would diverge at an exponential rate. But, how small could epsilon be? In a deterministic theory, epsilon could be any number greater than zero. But, if that were true, it should be possible to encode the works of Shakespeare in the dynamical system. For example, one could take epsilon = 1 / (ASCII code for the works of Shakespeare). Or, if one were using the Lorenz Attractor, one could use the two branches of the system as a binary code and pick an initial condition such that the system would choose the right sequence of branches to encode the works of Shakespeare.

But, if it is not possible to encode an unlimited amount of information in a dynamical system, then it must be that not all starting conditions are possible. If some starting point, x1, is possible, it may be that x2 is not possible if epsilon is too small. In essence, the starting points x1 and x2 would be indistinguishable --- not just indistinguishable to a human but indistinguishable to physical reality. If a physical system could exist in state x1, then it couldn't exist in state x2 for epsilon too small (or, indeed, for many other values of x). In essence, some type of quantum theory is a philosophical requirement of the fact that infinitesimal quantities are not possible in reality, that "if something exists, it must be definite and bounded."

It seems to me that the assertion that, "If something exists, it must be definite and bounded," makes the statement, "The past contains the whole future, but hides the exact content of the future from any process smaller than the entire universe," impossible.

Darrell

[Francisco Ferrer]

"Certain consistent causal factors" in a man are what others would call personal integrity.

(But I'm forgetting- by you, man is a being of pre-programmed soul...;))

Perhaps part of the problem in your not understanding the argument for determinism is in your not reading it. I never used the term "pre-programmed soul." Programmed by whom? Allah? Jehovah? Zeus? And where in the human anatomy do we find this "soul"?

My "proof" of free will is randomness? I have barely even mentioned it until my recent post. Certainly I don't think free will is invalidated by randomness. Further, where would free will be without the option to NOT initiate it? 'Forced will'?

Since there is no human thought or activity without a prior cause, there is no will separate from the genetic-biological-environmental-social context which an individual inhabits. The only plausible basis for a "will" is to call the universe itself the "will"--which would put willism in its proper category--that of mysticism.

Not taking "control" by no means indicates the incapability to take control. It indicates the refusal to take control (Rand's "evasion"), since reasoned thinking is not automatic, but effortful.

Then my computer must have free will because it performs logic.

Men can think - or may merely subsist with a buzzing of stimuli (external and internal) through their brains.

Like the ball bouncing around a roulette wheel which stops at some random number, arbitrarily paying out or losing - some 'thought' pops up without direction or purpose; such is random thought and consequent random action.

"Choice however, is not chance".

Free will means also one is "free" to choose not to focus -- or, to find the "will" to focus: on what, how much and when.

I look forward to the first example of a human who successfully turned off his thinking switch.

[anthony]

Since there is no human thought or activity without a prior cause, there is no will separate from the genetic-biological-environmental-social context which an individual inhabits. The only plausible basis for a "will" is to call the universe itself the "will"--which would put willism in its proper category--that of mysticism.

I must say you have been clear throughout, and that I appreciate. Notwithstanding the glaring unreason in the position of determinism - and here in your statement, a logical fallacy. For only by accepting the premise of man's determinism may one conclude that man's free-will was determined!

You've operated from your own assumption that "no human thought or activity [is] without a prior cause" and continued to its illogical end. The Stolen Concept, no?

More, you have succeeded in high-lighting the mystical fatalism inherent - not in free will - but in determinism.

By determinism, at the instant of The Big Bang the existence of New York City was destined...done deal, Kismet.

Apparently you are unfamiliar with Rand's "Man is a being of self made soul" that I paraphrased- which reminds me not to make presumptions of anybody's reading of Objectivism on OL. "Soul" = mind = consciousness, in O'ist terms.

[Brant Gaede]

A lot of the free will--determinism debate is semantical with top down reasoning from a label.

What is really needed is merely empirical work describing what is going on sans ideology and philosophical churning.

When it comes to choice consider that your emotions have been pre-programed to manifest themselves considering the manifesting context. Action/reaction. They are telling you to do something, continue to do something, not to do something, etc. We can say they are trying to determine your actions based on antecedent factors hitting current ones. In a non-emergency situation experiment with acting against what you are feeling.

Flying an airplane on instruments requires learning how to trust the readings you are seeing and ignoring your body screaming with all its might that you are doing it wrong. The body needs retraining. The first time for me was when my instructor flew us into solid clouds--in violation of visual flight rules (VFR)--and gave me the controls. He took over when I was about to lose complete control of the Cessna. Consequently I can now do that again and not lose control. JFK jr bought the farm flying out of an airport I had once used in New Jesey (Caldwell) because he lost control flying at night. It's called "spatial disorientation."

I consider free will/determinism debates to be essentially philosophically trite and psychologically disastrous to young, developing minds that want to find and develop their own, productive futures. No free will = no freedom (to act). Of course this is way too much of a simplification and any determinist can cry out it's a false proposition for it is as such, but I'm talking about bad consequences of an idea--determinism--that demands crowding out another idea--free will, even though no one can prove actual, absolute determinism even in the purely physical realm. Real proof requires real data and there's way too much data, known and unknown and always will be, so even empirical conclusions--as opposed to deductive ones--will always be tempered with tentativeness here.

--Brant

[anthony]

"Crowding out" is a good one. It looks to me that within the doctrine of determinism not an iota of free will should be admitted - else, the whole edifice comes tumbling down. I don't think any free-willer does the reverse. It's self evident that an individual is born into a world he didn't create; and that previous influences, emotions and thoughts are relevant to and shaping of his 'now'. However, he has the power to incrementally build upon, or radically change, external, man made things... while making what seems like limitless adjustments and maybe leaps within his consciousness - all (at least partially) independent of 'what was before'.

And switching his directions by independent will.

Basically, it is the idea of independence which is most disliked or distrusted by determinists, I think.

[Francisco Ferrer]

Since there is no human thought or activity without a prior cause, there is no will separate from the genetic-biological-environmental-social context which an individual inhabits. The only plausible basis for a "will" is to call the universe itself the "will"--which would put willism in its proper category--that of mysticism.

I must say you have been clear throughout, and that I appreciate. Notwithstanding the glaring unreason in the position of determinism - and here in your statement, a logical fallacy. For only by accepting the premise of man's determinism may one conclude that man's free-will was determined!

You've operated from your own assumption that "no human thought or activity [is] without a prior cause" and continued to its illogical end. The Stolen Concept, no?

Once again, you completely misunderstand me, on purpose or by accident, I know not which. You have claimed that thought and action are the result of a "free will." Since you have provided no scientific evidence for the existence of such a "free will," then the only rational response is to say that free will is non-existent or that it is merely a shorthand expression for the complex interplay of biological and environmental forces that underlie all human activity.

In other words, "free will" is a form of metaphor, a figure of speech like "Mother Nature" and "Father Time."

Rapidly rising warm air and the presence of moisture can produce thunderstorm. The uninformed and the poetic can call it "nature's fury." Similarly, the uninformed and the poetic an speak of "free will" being at work when a bar patron calls for another beer.

Now, on the other hand, if you think that free will is not just a figure of speech but has an existential referent (something apart from all physical forces surrounding human activity), all you have to do is offer scientific evidence for its existence.

And don't worry about hauling a great deal of evidence onto this forum. I'll settle for a single iota.

More, you have succeeded in high-lighting the mystical fatalism inherent - not in free will - but in determinism.

By determinism, at the instant of the Big Bang, the existence of New York City was destined...Kismet.

Apparently you are unfamiliar with Rand's "Man is a being of self made soul" that I paraphrased- which reminds me not to make presumptions of anybody's reading of Objectivism on OL. "Soul" = mind = consciousness, in O'ist terms.

You continue to submit further proof that you are responding to my posts without reading them. I have already differentiated my position from fatalism. But go ahead and argue with a stawman if it makes you happy.

In Post #200 you falsely described my position as arguing that

man is a being of pre-programmed soul...

I know Rand's use of the word, but unlike her I take pains to avoid terminology such as "soul," "spirit," "essence," "élan vital" and other words that are associated with dogmas for the existence of things beyond this world--in other words, mysticism.

[anthony]

The skeptic, as ex-intrinsicist, ("both sides of the same counterfeit coin")claims agnosticism, but is as much a determinist/fatalist as a mystic, sans God. That's the connection, but you've read Rand.

You would know the skeptic tends to be empiricist, who tends to be anti-conceptualist.

The evidence of free will is gathered by one's observation, introspection and concepts and abstraction, not in quasi-science.

Personally, and especially on an Objectivist forum, "I take pains" to use the terminology I think is true of consciousness:

Man's mind is man's soul, no big deal - but a pity that taking back a word from the religious disturbs you.

[Peter]

I am not using definitions, quotes, or “infallible text” as any kind of proof, just as a way of showing “method.” Nor am I at odds with Objectivism. I will attempt to leave big “O” Objectivism alone, which is everything Rand wrote. However, small “o” objectivism needs more beef.

Brant wrote:

. . . . but I'm talking about bad consequences of an idea--determinism--that demands crowding out another idea--free will, even though no one can prove actual, absolute determinism even in the purely physical realm. Real proof requires real data and there's way too much data, known and unknown and always will be, so even empirical conclusions--as opposed to deductive ones--will always be tempered with tentativeness here.

end quote

“Well said” Brant, and to all. What has always bothered me about this debate is how Objectivism derides determinists on the one hand, yet Objectivism’s definitions offer no proof, except for human beings, using reason, to “look within” and to “avoid the consequences of deterministic thinking.”

Tony wrote:

The evidence of free will is gathered by one's observation, introspection and concepts and abstraction, not in quasi-science.

end quote

Years ago on the mostly non ARI sites Atlantis and OWL one ARI Objectivist Ellen Moore (the term is used loosely, but Ellen was hardcore.) She started out arguing that the concept *volition* was much more extensive but ended up saying it was simply the ability to *initiate* the raising of one’s consciousness.

Ellen Moore began, around 2002, by expressing such opinions as:

You have been told that Objectivism has a "minimalist" metaphysics. Nothing could be farther from the truth. It is my contention that Rand fundamentally identified the axiomatic nature of existence, the fundamental nature of man, the objective nature of epistemology, of morality, politics and esthetics. The integrated philosophical structure of Objectivism will stand against any challenge opposing it. Rand maintained that each human consciousness is required by its identity to act volitionally. A human consciousness ~cannot~ act deterministically. It is not programmed metaphysically as a determined automaton because its nature is volitionally causal. Each consciousness has the individual, independent power to initiate, direct, and control only its own actions of awareness.

Rand's fundamental metaphysical identification about human identity is, "Man is a being of volitional consciousness." This is Rand's most fundamental objective insight into human nature. It changes everything about human nature and human behavior. It places volitional consciousness outside the framework of any version of mysticism, past or present, and it objectively locates volition in the metaphysical identity of human consciousness. Volition is the power of initiation, direction, and control of actions of conscious awareness, i.e., a state of human consciousness ~is~ volitionally initiated awareness. Each degree or level of awareness is initiated, directed and controlled by one's actions of consciousness.

end quote

What Ellen Moore later changed was the final phrase, “Each degree or level of awareness is initiated, directed and controlled by one's actions of consciousness.” I may be quavering but some degrees of human “levels of awareness” are not controlled, and she later agreed, though I may look for her exact words. So, we are not absolutely determined when we choose to raise our cognitive level. Pushed by our “physical “plant” or bio-hardware and DNA perhaps. Pushed by prior conclusions perhaps. Given an incentive to, without environmental queues, perhaps. There are plenty of reasons why we do things but that first undetermined decision which is to raise one’s conscious level is not predetermined.

And Let me offer one such Randian definition that is lacking:

“The Objectivist Ethics,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 20:

Reason integrates man’s perceptions by means of forming abstractions or conceptions, thus raising man’s knowledge from the perceptual level, which he shares with animals, to the conceptual level, which he alone can reach. The method which reason employs in this process is logic—and logic is the art of non-contradictory identification.

end quote

Is *volition* required in the above definition? Perhaps it is implied but this definition IS somewhat “deterministic.” Can two reasoning beings reach different conclusions from the same data? Yes, but one conclusion is wrong.

Peter

Notes:

From “The Ayn Rand Lexicon,” Determinism

Determinism is the theory that everything that happens in the universe—including every thought, feeling, and action of man—is necessitated by previous factors, so that nothing could ever have happened differently from the way it did, and everything in the future is already pre-set and inevitable. Every aspect of man’s life and character, on this view, is merely a product of factors that are ultimately outside his control. Objectivism rejects this theory.

Leonard Peikoff, The Philosophy of Objectivism lecture series, Lecture 1:

Dictatorship and determinism are reciprocally reinforcing corollaries: if one seeks to enslave men, one has to destroy their reliance on the validity of their own judgments and choices—if one believes that reason and volition are impotent, one has to accept the rule of force. Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses.

From “The Ayn Rand Lexicon,” Free Will:

That which you call your soul or spirit is your consciousness, and that which you call “free will” is your mind’s freedom to think or not, the only will you have, your only freedom, the choice that controls all the choices you make and determines your life and your character.

[Francisco Ferrer]

The skeptic, as ex-intrinsicist, ("both sides of the same counterfeit coin")claims agnosticism, but is as much a determinist/fatalist as a mystic, sans God. That's the connection, but you've read Rand.

You would know the skeptic tends to be empiricist, who tends to be anti-conceptualist.

A skeptic is one who requires that claims be well supported by evidence. Accordingly, I dispute the existence of God, Nessie, the Tooth Fairy and unicorns. I also reject intrinsicism, agnosticism, and fatalism.

But mentioning all this is probably pointless. Obviously you're not going to let facts stand in the way of building a case a against me. In subscribing to free will you've already shown a low threshold for belief in non-existent things.

The evidence of free will is gathered by one's observation, introspection and concepts and abstraction, not in quasi-science.

I took a moment to do some observation, introspection, concept-formation and abstraction. After rummaging around a bit I couldn't come up with even a whiff of free will. I also failed to detect any sign of ectoplasm, auras, halos, astral bodies, or feathers from angel wings.

Thus your own methodology disproves the existence of free will.

[Peter]

Francisco wrote, after introspecting, “Thus your own methodology disproves the existence of free will.”

I would require an exact “read out” of your fMRI as you thought, along with YOUR verbal analyses of your thought processes. A hook up to a lie detector would discover any equivocation no matter the level of conscious and subconscious thought. Then we scientists would need to transcribe and filter your verbal analyses through symbolic logic via a computer: X observation, led to Y introspection, which lead to Z concept-formation and then XYZ or abstraction led to your written response.

Since you don't have free will, am I coercing an answer out of you or is coercion only possible with a mythologically volitional being?

[Brant Gaede]

Well, it's true enough you can't find free will inside someone--just like human rights that way. Nor can you find determinism.

--Brant

[Darrell Hougen]

=== Determinism, Free Will ===

And then for those who would like to jump in now and say: But reality isn't deterministic, because I have free will! I ask you to think about what you are saying. Are you saying that what you think about is completely arbitrary, uncaused by yourself nor anything at all? That neurons in your brain just fire, uncaused, not having any reason for happening, that the electromagnetic event breaks conservation of energy and momentum? Or do you claim that your thoughts have reason for being as they are? I would agree, if you are a well functioning human, then most of your thoughts are there because you've re-iterated over them over and over, and via the design of your brain, you increase the number of copies of information that is repeatedly thought, and you overwrite information that you infrequently think... that this is the reason why your memories are as they are. Furthermore, reasons to keep thinking of an idea is because you have identified it as both valid and useful. You can't control ALL of your thoughts, because you can't control your sensory information. Nor can you by will change what you are at this moment, you can only change to become what you will be in the next moment.

What is intelligence? To a vast extent you, your design and your memories, you take what information you have and perform the following process: You bring into active memory a subset of your memories of associations of actions with sensory state changes (ones related to your current observations), inducting the effect of the actions, and then using this information combined with your current observations, processing various sequences of actions and using the inducted effects of the actions to deduce (predict) what the future state of reality would be given these premises... and then comparing these predictions against your goals to determine the predicted goal attainment that would result from each plan, then compare the predicted goal attainments to find the one that has the greatest goal attainment, then selecting that plan and sequentially sending the commands for each action to your actuators (such as muscles) in order to actualize your plan and attempt to actualize your predicted goal. You perform the plan. You mark all of the used action->effect associations within the plan as used again! (make another copy of the association). You observe the results of your actions, and you take big note of actions which produced results different than you expected (delete one action->effect association, make a new action->effect association). You identify actions that produced results consistent with what you expected, and you remember It worked one more time (make a copy of the association of action->effect)!. If the goal wasn't attained, but the goal is really important to you, then you take tons of time thinking about those action->effect associations which didn't go as predicted, and you try to come up with a new action->effect association that works more in more contexts. This process, intelligence, is the underlying process of the human mind, and our ability to store more memories, perform more induction, and more of all of the above, all with making fewer mistakes (yea there are tons of places where information could be corrupted or comparisons could be calculated incorrectly)... humans have more ability in each of those aspects of design than any other species on earth.

Furthermore, isn't this compatible with a deterministic reality? To the extent that a system is controlled, it must be due to a causal deterministic process. To the extent that we are objective, it is because we use observation, induction, and deduction, all of which are deterministic processes.

"Free will" is the recognition that every man has his own unique hierarchy of goals, and furthermore that every man observes and predict his actions, and then selects his own actions based on the reasoning of his own predictions. Free will of man recognizes that men have such a great intellectual ability that they can identify harmful patterns of action that arise in one's mind instinctively due to unexpected events that trigger passionate desires and instead come up with detailed plans of sequences of minute precision actions which vastly improve his self/friends situation beyond the simple plans (like gouge, clobber, bite, grab, tear, thrust) that less capable living things can conclude to actualize.

Cheers,

Dean

Hi Dean,

I think your description of the way the human brain works is interesting and quite similar to my own. However, we have reached different conclusions on the topics of randomness and free will. Here is a link to a previous post on the subject which I am including here for comparison:

Consciousness may not be identical to any particular bit of matter, but consciousness must derive its reality from matter (and by 'matter' I mean 'physical stuff', not the more specific physics models like mass/energy).

This is a presumption, not a fact. I'm not sure consciousness must derive from anything just like I'm not sure space or electrons or hierarchical forms must derive from anything.

I used to believe like you do, but I decided to limit my knowledge to things I can know for certain and be serene in not knowing the things I cannot. I find great comfort in saying I don't know when I truly don't.

The problem is that there is no evidence that consciousness requires any "force" or "field" that we don't already know about. I can't argue with a statement that you don't know that such things don't exist, but let me try to argue that they aren't really necessary.

To me, it is clear that consciousness and the operations of the brain are just two different levels of description of the same physical process. First, let me use an analogy. If I were to ask my son, some day, what he was doing, he might say that he was playing a video game called "Call of Duty." He would say that he was shooting and killing enemy soldiers on a battlefield in Europe. And, that would be a perfectly valid description of what he was doing. It would be a high level description.

However, if we were to ask what he was doing at a much lower level, we might say that he was moving levers on a control unit and that moving those levers was sending voltages of various levels to a computer. Looking inside the computer (under a microscope) we would see tens of millions of solid state switches changing states millions of times per second. At the output, we would see a complex electromagnetic wave being transmitted through a wire to a television which, being an old-fashioned television, uses an electron beam to illuminate phosphors on a screen.

At a slightly higher level we might describe the operations of the switches in the computer as implementing logic gates and adders and multiplication units, and memory, etc. At yet a higher level we might see hundreds of thousands or millions of lines of assembly code that implemented a certain sequence of commands and above that we might see millions of lines of a higher level language that was compiled into the assembly code to run on the computer.

All of the descriptions are valid. There is no duality. There are only different descriptive levels.

Looking at the activities of the brain, we would see similar situation. I might say that I am thinking, that I am aware of my surroundings, or that I am imagining the trees in the yard in front of the house in which I grew up. Awareness, thought, and imagination are all parts of consciousness and are a valid description of a person's faculty of consciousness. However, it is equally true that lower level descriptions are possible.

Looking at a very low level, we would see tens of billions of neurons all firing hundreds of times per second with each one firing at its own, individual rate, and those rates would be changing over time in response to the firing rates of other neurons that are connected through thousands or tens of thousands of connections per neuron. At a somewhat higher level, we would see various regions of the brain that are specialized to process incoming sensory signals from each of the sense organs --- the eyes, ears, nose, mouth and tactile neurons We would also see regions of the brain that control different muscle movements and specialized regions for speech production and other important functions.

Again, there is no duality, just different levels of description.

In this view, it makes no sense to talk about the mind controlling the brain. The mind and the brain are the same thing, just described differently.

So, what about volition? Is it possible for a physical system to have volition?

First, we have to ask, what is volition?

Volition is generally taken to mean an unforced choice. It can also mean an non-predetermined choice. Clearly, a person does not operate like a clock. A person's choices and actions cannot be predicted in the same sense that the future state of a clock can be determined by knowing its present state.

The answer, I believe, is randomness. This runs counter to Rand, Piekoff and other major Objectivists, but I haven't seen a satisfactory explanation from them concerning the relationship of volition to physical processes.

Let's look a little more closely at the process of thought and action. In my view, in deciding what to do a person basically goes through these steps, (1) observing the world, (2) thinking up possible actions, (3) evaluating the possibilities, (4) choosing an action, (5) taking an action, and --- returning to the beginning --- observing the consequences. This process takes place over all time scales from choosing where to place one's foot while walking to planning for one's retirement and pertains even to choosing what to think about next.

In my view, randomness probably enters the picture in step 2, the process of generating a set of possible actions. Perhaps neurons in some part of the brain tap into the natural randomness present in real, physical processes. The idea that randomness enters the process in step 2 does not imply that people act entirely randomly because each possible action must be evaluated before one is chosen. So, most crazy ideas are rejected or discarded most of the time. So, most people are not insane. However, the introduction of randomness does engender the possibility of acting unpredictably.

As a little aside, this works nicely from an information theoretic point of view. In information theory, a random source is an information source since no finite set of symbols can encode all of the information from a random source over infinite time. In other words, an information source produces an infinite stream of symbols. Usually, coding efficiency is characterized by the average number of symbols used per bit of information from the source but there is a limit to how compact that list can be and it is necessarily unbounded in size over time.

If humans behave randomly, then humans are an information source.

If humans are an information source, then it is not surprising that they are able to invent new things. They just keep randomly imagining new possibilities, discarding the craziest ones, honing in on the ones that seem promising, and thinking up random refinements for them.

Also, for example, the question of whether criminals are the way they are because of nature or nurture is invalid because a human is an information source. A human is not bound by either nature or nurture. He has the ability to act contrary to both. Of course, if you believe in volition, then that is nothing new, but having a physical explanation for volition is devastating to the arguments for human determinism.

Darrell

[Francisco Ferrer]

Francisco wrote, after introspecting, “Thus your own methodology disproves the existence of free will.”

I would require an exact “read out” of your fMRI as you thought, along with YOUR verbal analyses of your thought processes. A hook up to a lie detector would discover any equivocation no matter the level of conscious and subconscious thought. Then we scientists would need to transcribe and filter your verbal analyses through symbolic logic via a computer: X observation, led to Y introspection, which lead to Z concept-formation and then XYZ or abstraction led to your written response.

Since you don't have free will, am I coercing an answer out of you or is coercion only possible with a mythologically volitional being?

Coercion is a violation of property rights. All that is necessary for property rights to exist is a society that recognizes the importance of not initiating force. Since a number of determinists (including Mises) have endorsed laissez-faire, neither free will nor a belief in it is a pre-condition for a free society.

[deanwins]

Darrel,

"... having a physical explanation for volition is devastating to the arguments for human determinism"

Here's two ways new ideas can be generated: they can be transformations of previously generated ideas, or they can be made from a sequence of "random" information. And transformation algorithms can be generated with random processes too. I totally agree that such "random" processes are critical aspects of learning and planning. Now we just debate whether "random" information is generated by a rediculously vast causal deterministic process, or if things actually happen that are fully independent of the past.

The former can fully satisfyingly explain a source of increadibly high quality unpredictable information generation. The later would seem in my mind to contradict conservation of energy and momentum. Either way we have elements of our behavior that are not controlled by our logic/reasoning.

So let me talk further on your "humans are a source of random information"... given the vast number of atomic particles throughout the universe, and forces between them, and electromagnetic and gravitational forces... whatever they fundamentally break down to, we find that all energy/matter in the universe interacts with all other matter in the universe. So a comet's collision with a solar flare in another galaxy might result in an up spin rather than a down spin of an electron that flowed from one atom to the next across a electrical potential difference in your synapse. Who could have predicted that? Nobody... yet due to our reality's vast quantity of fundamental constituents which all continually interact... it may very well still be a deterministic system.

And its not just humans that generate "random" information. There are all sorts of high quality random number generators made from things like radiation counters to xor & shifting data from an analog to digital converter. From computer science we learn that its actually pretty hard to create cryptographic quality random data. The best source for random data comes from using a sensor that senses data from a large portion of reality rather than using a seed & math function.

Our skin is loaded with sensors, and temperature, pressure, and other data, which is all continually streaming into our nervous system. Surely our brains use this information to create new information ("random" of course, then use increadible parallel processing power to determine whether the generated information is valid and useful).

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Heh.

People don't have free will, but society does?

Dayaamm!

That's one for the books!

Michael

[Francisco Ferrer]

Sigh. Throughout this thread I have tried to emphasize the distinction between the claim for psychological free will and the citizen's freedom to act in a political sense.

Of course, the proponents of psychological free will can blur the distinction and construct a strawman argument against the determinist by claiming that he's against free will in the political sense. It's been done more than once in this thread.

So to show that two can play this game, let's ask this question: Does the average citizen of North Korea have free will?

If somebody answers "yes," I can retort, "Seriously? How is freedom to act possible in a slave state?"

If the answer is "no," I can come back with, "See, free will is non-existent for millions of people!"

[anthony]

The skeptic, as ex-intrinsicist, ("both sides of the same counterfeit coin")claims agnosticism, but is as much a determinist/fatalist as a mystic, sans God. That's the connection, but you've read Rand.

You would know the skeptic tends to be empiricist, who tends to be anti-conceptualist.

A skeptic is one who requires that claims be well supported by evidence. Accordingly, I dispute the existence of God, Nessie, the Tooth Fairy and unicorns. I also reject intrinsicism, agnosticism, and fatalism.

But mentioning all this is probably pointless. Obviously you're not going to let facts stand in the way of building a case a against me. In subscribing to free will you've already shown a low threshold for belief in non-existent things.

The evidence of free will is gathered by one's observation, introspection and concepts and abstraction, not in quasi-science.

I took a moment to do some observation, introspection, concept-formation and abstraction. After rummaging around a bit I couldn't come up with even a whiff of free will. I also failed to detect any sign of ectoplasm, auras, halos, astral bodies, or feathers from angel wings.

Thus your own methodology disproves the existence of free will.

That is a methodological skeptic, when it's apparent I've meant a philosophical skeptic - one who believes no knowledge (in its complete sense, including conviction and morality) is possible to men. Fits determinism to a t.

I have "shown a low threshold of belief in non-existent things"?

Interesting, when most philosophers consider consciousness an existent. Certainly in O'ism, you must know.

From von Mises, whom you laud, the quote you gave in #94:

"[...]They are his fate and destiny. His will is not 'free' in the metaphysical sense of this term. It is determined by his background and all the influences to which he himself and his ancestors were exposed."

Fate and destiny, notice? - at least von Mises called determinism like it is.

Recently, in #213 (this thread has had legs) you offer him as an example of one of a number of determinists who have "endorsed laissez-faire".

Therefore, I take it, justifying determinism.

It reminds me of a guy who arrives in Rome after a circuitous journey, and claims his route getting there is the only one ever possible.

Laissez faire (and non-coercion, individual rights) may be the final conclusion for many a rationale by many thinkers - from sheer practicality to utilitarianism to reciprocity. It works; it's fair; people are protected; society benefits...But above the pragmatic, it's the morality of rational self-interest which Capitalism and freedom will survive and flourish by. Is that debatable?

Can a determinist - the product of everything and everybody but himself- actually hold such a morality?

Now I'm starting to see why Rand, who admired his output as economist, thought LvMises fell badly short "...in that he attempted to divorce economics from morality..." [AR Letters]

[Francisco Ferrer]

That is a methodological skeptic, when it's apparent I've meant a philosophical skeptic - one who believes no knowledge (in its complete sense, including conviction and morality) is possible to men. Fits determinism to a t.

Not this determinist, for I have complete confidence in the ability of scholars and researchers to discover truth in mathematics, the physical sciences, the earth sciences, the biological sciences, medicine, physics, astronomy and many other disciplines.

Another strawman dud.

I have "shown a low threshold of belief in non-existent things"?

Interesting, when most philosophers consider consciousness an existent. Certainly in O'ism, you must know.

I've never denied consciousness. It is a state of mental activity which can be measured by electroencephalography and other means. I deny only that the brain is activated or controlled by a non-measurable force called "free will."

From von Mises, whom you laud, the quote you gave in #94:

"[...]They are his fate and destiny. His will is not 'free' in the metaphysical sense of this term. It is determined by his background and all the influences to which he himself and his ancestors were exposed."

Fate and destiny, notice? - at least von Mises called determinism like it is.

Recently, in #213 (this thread has had legs) you offer him as an example of a determinist who has "endorsed laissez-faire".

Therefore, I take it, justifying determinism.

Mises here is addressing the issue of man's nature, a subject that Objectivist writers take up often. Consider, for example, Peikoff in Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand:

Every entity has a nature; ... it has certain attributes and no others. Such an entity must act in accordance with its nature. The only alternatives would be for an entity to act apart from its nature or against it; both of those are impossible. ... In any given set of circumstances, therefore, there is only one action possible to an entity, the action expressive of its identity. This is the action it will take, the action that is caused and necessitated by its nature.

On this matter Mises and Peikoff are in accord.

It reminds me of a guy who arrives in Rome after a circuitous journey, and claims his route getting there is the only one ever possible.

Laissez faire (and non-coercion, individual rights) may be the final conclusion for many a rationale by many thinkers - from sheer practicality to utilitarianism to reciprocity. It works; it's fair; people are protected; society benefits...But above the pragmatic, it's the morality of rational self-interest which Capitalism and freedom will survive and flourish by. Is that debatable?

Can a determinist - the product of everything and everybody but himself- actually hold such a morality?

Now I'm starting to see why Rand, who admired his output as economist, thought LvMises fell badly short "...in that he attempted to divorce economics from morality..." [AR Letters]

I am rational. I am self-interested. I support the free market. I support laissez-faire.

Next question?

[anthony]

You "have confidence in the ability" of... others. So, the morality of others. And the convictions of others.

How can you be sure of them? Who knows what they were determined by?

Maybe, many were even volitional!

Anyhow, does that electro-thingy measure determinism?

[Brant Gaede]

Sigh. Throughout this thread I have tried to emphasize the distinction between the claim for psychological free will and the citizen's freedom to act in a political sense.

Of course, the proponents of psychological free will can blur the distinction and construct a strawman argument against the determinist by claiming that he's against free will in the political sense. It's been done more than once in this thread.

So to show that two can play this game, let's ask this question: Does the average citizen of North Korea have free will?

If somebody answers "yes," I can retort, "Seriously? How is freedom to act possible in a slave state?"

If the answer is "no," I can come back with, "See, free will is non-existent for millions of people!"

I think I agree with this. Slavery absolutely traduces "free will" psychologically by narrowing the sphere of possible action. Other things can too, but this is the biggie. If this country were only on the premise of more and more freedom instead of the contrary, it would only take a little more actual freedom to open the pursuit of happiness floodgates. In the meantime we'd best be sort of like Greg.

--Brant

[anthony]

No. One thing's for definite, that you don't come by 'political free will' by way of determinism - practised (if that's even possible) or advocated.

Cutting the legs from under you.

To state that 'political free' will is the ideal, but personal free will is rubbish, is a nasty self-contradiction.

We can point at North Koreans as the best examples of determinism on the planet.

[Francisco Ferrer]

You "have confidence in the ability" of... others. So, the morality of others. And the convictions of others.

How can you be sure of them? Who knows what they were determined by?

Maybe, many were even volitional!

Anyhow, does that electro-thingy measure determinism?

Please take a course in reading. In due time you may discover that sentences should be read all the way to the end:

"Not this determinist, for I have complete confidence in the ability of scholars and researchers to discover truth in mathematics, the physical sciences, the earth sciences, the biological sciences, medicine, physics, astronomy and many other disciplines."

Example: 2 + 2 = 4

I did not discover this truth, yet I can confirm it through my own experience:

4=(3+1)=((2+1)+1)=(2+(1+1)=2+2

As for proving determinism, there is already a staggering body of scientific evidence for the genetic or environmental basis of human behaviors. For example, researchers have identified specific loci on chromosomes which cause the mental health disorders Lesch-Nyhan syndrome, Turner's syndrome, and hundreds of others.

I am not aware of a single scientific study which shows a smidgeon, speck, whit or even an iota of evidence for "free will" being the cause of any human activity.

No, I do not have proof for the precise causal nature of every human action. That would require omniscience.

But consider this: Beethoven, Puccini, Wagner and many others claimed that God was directly responsible for putting music into their heads before they wrote it down.

Why not prove that all music composition has an earthly, non-divine origin?

Instead we rely on Occam's Razor: there are many natural explanations for the creation of a tune (inversion, retrograde, retrograde-inversion, augmentation, diminution, etc.), but there is insufficient warrant (no evidence at all) for the supernatural basis of music.

On that same basis we reject "free will."

[Francisco Ferrer]

No. One thing's for definite, that you don't come by 'political free will' by way of determinism - practised (if that's even possible) or advocated.

Cutting the legs from under you.

To state that 'political free' will is the ideal, but personal free will is rubbish, is a nasty self-contradiction.

We can point at North Koreans as the best examples of determinism on the planet.

Thus have I proved determinism.

[BaalChatzaf]

4=(3+1)=((2+1)+1)=(2+(1+1)=2+2

I have a program which has done that manipulation. Does this mean my computer + program thinks?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[deanwins]

4=(3+1)=((2+1)+1)=(2+(1+1)=2+2

I have a program which has done that manipulation. Does this mean my computer + program thinks?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Yes, but clearly if this is all it does, then its thinking ability is quite limited. Defining thinking as processing information, and information as relationships between parts of reality... then any kind of interaction between parts of reality is thinking. Some thinking more complex and having different properties/features than others (such as the ability to sense, simulate/predict, and actuate).