|
|
|
bloody_peasant
Skeptic Friend
USA
139 Posts |
 Posted - 04/11/2005 : 09:13:02 [Permalink]
|
Dave W
I have seen you post that radioactive decay is the only purely random event we know of, but if I'm not mistaken is the spontaneous creation and destruction of quantum particles considered a purely random event as well?
Edited to add:
Here's an interesting article on the subject:
http://www.bigissueground.com/philosophy/ash-freewill.shtml
In regards to having definite evidence of purely random events I found this quote interesting and would like to research more:
quote:
Ted Honderich points out that the orthodox theory's focus is not events but our perception of them[1], and also that after 75 years no clear evidence has been given of a random event even at the subatomic level. And of course our everyday lives bear out the existence of physical laws at the 'macro' level of falling apples and predictable clocks. The fact is that no one has produced a levitating apple, or any other less improbable violation of physical laws at the 'macro' level. This has led many physicists to accept that, even if Quantum Theory makes specific subatomic events indeterminate, the macro level remains almost wholly determined.
(emphasis mine)
|
| Edited by - bloody_peasant on 04/11/2005 09:18:28 |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2005 : 09:45:40 [Permalink]
|
Well, I prefer a kind of pinheaded approach to the question of naturalism and determinism. For one thing, as has probably been mentioned, even though we know that many of the choices we make may be determined by the inheritance of certain traits and that we are affected by all we take in (environmental factors) all of which I see as natural, I will live as though I have choices. This debate is interesting. We have much to learn. But with regard to the moment to moment, minute to minute and day to day choices we must make, in the final analysis, which one of us feels like they really are a pinball in a great pinball machine? And maybe we are, but I sure as hell can't live my life that way. (And this might be where I run into trouble with philosophical constructs of what is reality. In the long run, I don't care.)
Sure, living as though I have free will may beg some of questions being discussed in this thread. Valid questions too. Technically, I may not have a leg to stand on. Call it human nature, which is probably not a falsifiable concept.
As I said, mine is pinheads approach to the question. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2005 : 09:57:06 [Permalink]
|
| Is there a difference between choice and "Free Will?" |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2005 : 10:16:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by bloody_peasant
My question is what is making that "choice". Is it the biological brain, a collection of firing neurons and a mix of electrical and chemical signals or is it some other entity. The purely biological brain seems incapable of this form of "free will" you are talking about, although there could aspects of the brain we are unaware of. This is true even if the choice is effected by purely random events or not.
The "purely biological brain," seen as a collection of ions and molecules, also "seems incapable" of consciousness itself. Or is it the case that your opinion of consciousness is that it is "just as philosophical as pure determinism?" Is there no evidence for consciousness?
As for the testability of "free will," this is a good point. Until I think on this more, I would suggest, at a minimum, that the existence of indecision is evidence in favor of it, even if free will cannot be directly tested itself. And just how does one explain the ability to step away from cognitive traps like "this sentence is false?" |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2005 : 10:20:40 [Permalink]
|
I thought this was another good point from the above link:
"Free will comes from a pre-scientific worldview, which saw the mind as quite separate from the body and the brain. With this picture, free will seemed easy to account for: decisions took place in the mind, where undetermined free will operated, which then ordered the body to act in a certain way. But this view is no longer tenable, as we see no evidence of a mysterious mental homunculus[2] interfering with our apparently regular, physically deterministic neural processes."
Dave, I still get the impression that you argue against determinism in general, because it does not jive with your sense of how things "should be" or how things "seem to be".
To me, arguing for "Free Will" is like arguing for the supernatural. In order for there to be true free will, it must exist outside of our physical brains. This brings us back to our consciousness topic, in which you did in fact argue strongly for matter & consciousness being one and the same. This (or so it would seem to me) leads directly to a deterministic viewpoint. As bloody_peasant has rightly pointed out, purely random events would not lead to a true free will. Purely random events might (might) affect the choices you make in some rare instances. But that still does not make your choice the action of a "free will".
|
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2005 : 10:32:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
I will live as though I have choices. This debate is interesting. We have much to learn. But with regard to the moment to moment, minute to minute and day to day choices we must make, in the final analysis, which one of us feels like they really are a pinball in a great pinball machine? And maybe we are, but I sure as hell can't live my life that way. (And this might be where I run into trouble with philosophical constructs of what is reality. In the long run, I don't care.)
Kil, even thought I lean very strongly towards a deterministic viewpoint, I must agree with you on this. I think we need to live as though we do have choices. I really can't see any other way to go about one's everyday life. I will fool myself into acting as though I have free will, even though I most likely do not. If I do somthing bad, I should be punished. If I do somthing great, I would like to be rewarded, even though I never had a choice to begin with 
|
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2005 : 11:13:09 [Permalink]
|
| I think the "should be punished" idea should be looked at a little more. I think there is a difference between responsibility and blame. Blame is a judgment based on the battle between "Good vs Evil" idea. I think these determinists are looking at the fact that education and poverty reduction have more of an effect on crime than the "lock-em-up" approach, and that yes, an individual can make better choices, but if one understands that x percent of people are going to do a thing if certain conditions apply, then exactly how much choice do they have? |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2005 : 11:15:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by bloody_peasant
I'm assuming this is a purely philosophical argument as you are arguing for what "should" be based on some set of conditions (in this case pure determinism).
It's as philosophical as the web page that started all this, in that the author(s) argue that even though people cannot be ultimately responsible for their actions, they should be held responsible for their actions. I still believe that such an attitude reflects a selective application of determinism.quote:
As far as rewards for good behavior, every society has such rewards built in to them (although not perfectly implemented by any means). These include materialistic rewards and social rewards. I hope you are not implying that a reward for good behavior is not being punished. I think the reward should be something tangible and positive.
No, I was wondering - if education and training are appropriate punishments for bad behaviour in a purely deterministic world - what an appropriate reward for good behaviour would be. I'm not talking about current societies, but of a hypothetical society in which everyone acknowledges determinism as the "correct" philosophy.quote:
Agreed to a point and I know the argument is thin and a common fallacy. However common fallacies are not always fallacies especially when talking about philosophical possibilities. One can go back barely 100 years and would have found the majority if not all of science saying it was impossible for life to originate on its own and no evidence existed that it could. Now quite a bit of literature exists on the subject and the evidence is getting stronger and stronger that abiogenesis is a possible way life originated.
The "common fallacy" is in thinking that because these explanations have been discovered in the past, it predicts that largely unrelated explanations will be forthcoming. This has been called "scientism," the idea that science will, given enough time, explain any particular question about the natural world.quote:
When studying something that is even today extremely hard to study and still truly is in its infancy, I think its better to say, according to all evidence we have at hand, these events are truly random, but other factors might be discovered that cause them to be a deterministic process.
Such qualifiers are actually implicit in the shorthand of "we know." A study of science itself shows its conclusions to be tentative in that they are subject to change upon receipt of new information.quote:
Agreed. That's why I am asking and trying to find out from those who are proponents of humans with Free Will. Where does this Free Will come from and how does it make decisions outside of the limitations of the human brain.
Good question. Perhaps a proponent of that sort of Free Will will make him/herself available to answer it. I am certainly not such a proponent, as I'm arguing for a free will which is, indeed, limited by biology.
I suppose that I am still asking the question, "what is it that you (the "opponents" of "free will") mean by truly free?" Specifically, can anyone provide an example of how a "truly Free Will" might operate - naturalistic or not? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bloody_peasant
Skeptic Friend
USA
139 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2005 : 11:19:46 [Permalink]
|
Dave W
quote:
The "purely biological brain," seen as a collection of ions and molecules, also "seems incapable" of consciousness itself. Or is it the case that your opinion of consciousness is that it is "just as philosophical as pure determinism?" Is there no evidence for consciousness?
I guess that depends on how you define consciousness? If you mean being aware of our environment and actively acting within it, then I would say the biological brain (with other organs) seems quite capable of doing this via basic deterministic principles. For example various sensory organs send various electronic or chemical signals to the brain which interprets them and builds perceptions within the brain using a battery of neurons this then creates various "output" actions. If you mean some higher level of consciousness, then I would speculate it is philosophical, but its hard to judge until you can define it better.
quote:
that the existence of indecision is evidence in favor of it
I don't think so. In a purely deterministic brain, it could just be a factor of competing regions within the neurons of the brain or conflicting messages from a combination of external events and internal factors such as hormones and memories. I don't see how indecision is any more evidence for Free Will then pure determinism, maybe you can elaborate more?
quote:
And just how does one explain the ability to step away from cognitive traps like "this sentence is false?"
I'm not sure if I understand this question especially in how it applies to having a Free Will.
(Edited to add Don't to 4th sentence)
Whether there are random events or not, when it comes to us having Free Will it still comes down to what appears to be a purely philosophical answer at this point (which is fine and fun to discuss). I can think of no empirical evidence that points to something higher than the biological brain we know of with its vast complexities and capabilities. I also cannot think of any feature of the known brain that implies an ability to make decisions outside of the "biology" of the brain. I'm not saying any such things don't exist as I argued earlier, we should leave the door open on such possibilities on very complex and hard to study objects such as the brain, I'm just saying there appears to be no hard evidence for it at this point.
If we ignore the concept of any "supernatural" Free Will at this point (e.g. a soul, a spirit, the force, etc.) then we are left with the biology of the brain as far as I'm concerned. The question then, is can complex biology such as our brain create something that can operate outside of biology's limits (which are for all intents and purposes purely chemical in nature). If the brain is limited to biological limits and there is no "supernatural" element then we are left with a purely deterministic outcome (with possible random elements thrown in) when it comes to the choices we make. Are we just glorified bacteria or do we have some special vitae that separates us from them in some more meaningful way.
Having said all of this I will agree with Kil and continue to live my life as if I do have true Free Will, because if the factors that create determinism are far too complex for me to fathom on any basis and the illusion is quite complete. Happy in my illusion I guess, plus it just feels better. |
| Edited by - bloody_peasant on 04/11/2005 11:48:28 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2005 : 11:26:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Having said all of this I will agree with Kil and continue to live my life as if I do have true Free Will, because if the factors that create determinism are far too complex for me to fathom on any basis and the illusion is quite complete.
I could have predicted that. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
bloody_peasant
Skeptic Friend
USA
139 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2005 : 11:42:50 [Permalink]
|
Dave W
I'm going to skip over your other points as I think we are in agreement, and I'll leave the exercise of describing a hypothetical society alone for now and jump straight to the point.
quote:
Good question. Perhaps a proponent of that sort of Free Will will make him/herself available to answer it. I am certainly not such a proponent, as I'm arguing for a free will which is, indeed, limited by biology.
I suppose that I am still asking the question, "what is it that you (the "opponents" of "free will") mean by truly free?" Specifically, can anyone provide an example of how a "truly Free Will" might operate - naturalistic or not?
First let me define what I see as Free Will. If we were somehow able to add up ALL of the factors leading up to a potential choice for an individual including the internal brain biology and assuming we had the knowledge to predict actions based on neurology, than an individual with true Free Will would be able to make a choice that violated our prediction. They would in sum be able to make decisions based not on the accumulated list of effects, but on some other arbitrary criteria thus breaking the chain of cause and effect.
Now to the idea of free will limited by biology. Biology is inheritably based on chemistry and physics. Chemistry and physics are quite predictable and deterministic (except for the possibility of those few random events we have already discussed). This leaves me to conclude that our decisions, if based in biology, are also deterministic. Now there is the potential for the concept of the whole creating something greater than the sum of the pieces I guess or some undiscovered feature of the human mind or biology, but until then we are just speculating. Since we have stepped out of the realm of philosophy into biology we should be limited by the empirical evidence and declare what we "know" with the caveats you mentioned above in your post.
As it is, I know of no concept in biology, chemistry, or physics, including human biology that allows for the kind of Free Will I described above. Also may I ask how you define "free will"?
PS This is quite fun >:-D |
|
|
|
bloody_peasant
Skeptic Friend
USA
139 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2005 : 11:44:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Having said all of this I will agree with Kil and continue to live my life as if I do have true Free Will, because if the factors that create determinism are far too complex for me to fathom on any basis and the illusion is quite complete.
I could have predicted that.
[/quote]
Damn it, no you can't, I have free will to choose what I believe, no wait some neurons are firing, arghhhhhhhh  |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2005 : 12:57:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by bloody_peasant
I guess that depends on how you define consciousness? If you mean being aware of our environment and actively acting within it, then I would say the biological brain (with other organs) seems quite capable of doing this via basic deterministic principles. For example various sensory organs send various electronic or chemical signals to the brain which interprets them and builds perceptions within the brain using a battery of neurons this then creates various "output" actions. If you mean some higher level of consciousness, then I would speculate it is philosophical, but its hard to judge until you can define it better.
That we have the ability to philosophize, I think (haha!), speaks volumes towards this question. We're pretty far from the "stimulus-response" end of the intellectual scale.
Seriously, this ability to metathink (thinking about thinking) suggests, at the very least, that our biology is complex enough to understand that something interesting is going on in our noggins. I'm not hypothesizing anything "outside" or "above" biology, but instead an emergent property of that biology.
I don't know about anyone else, but when I approach a serious decision, I go through a long process of internal analysis of the choices and their likely consequences. I often revise my opinions of the possibilities several times before I am done. At times, I will even relegate the decision-making process to a random (for all practical purposes) event like a coin flip, or say "screw it" and refuse to decide among any of the choices I've been offered, and go a completely different route.
Note again: I am talking about all this going on within the gray goo, in entirely natural ways. Obviously, my choice will be influenced by my history and current environment (and imagination), but determinism seems to be claiming that "that's all there is, those inputs just get processed by our biological calculators and out pops the decision." But I also seem to have the ability to willfully ignore history, or my current settings, or even my own preferences. Determinists, I'm sure, would answer, "yeah, but that's determined also"...
...and they might be right. I dunno.quote:
I don't think so. In a purely deterministic brain, it could just be a factor of competing regions within the neurons of the brain or conflicting messages from a combination of external events and internal factors such as hormones and memories. I don't see how indecision is any more evidence for Free Will then pure determinism, maybe you can elaborate more?
I was thinking that given the trillions of molecules involved in making a decision, it is highly unlikely that they "balance" to the point where indecision would happen as often as it does. That's the wrong way to think about it, though.quote:
quote:
And just how does one explain the ability to step away from cognitive traps like "this sentence is false?"
I'm not sure if I understand this question especially in how it applies to having a Free Will.
Technically, it doesn't, as I'm not arguing for a Free Will as you mean it by the capitalization. But that issue aside, the sentence is designed to be parsed with the intent of finding its truth value. A lesser mind than ours would, if it could understand the meaning of the words, get "stuck" in the "the sentence is true/false/true/false/true/false" loop that the sentence is designed to evoke.
We humans, on the other hand, have the ability to say, "oh, look, a paradox!" and analyze it without actually trying to assign a truth value to it at all.quote:
If we ignore the concept of any "supernatural" Free Will at this point (e.g. a soul, a spirit, the force, etc.) then we are left with the biology of the brain as far as I'm concerned. The question then, is can complex biology such as our brain create something that can operate outside of biology's limits (which are for all intents and purposes purely chemical in nature). If the brain is limited to biological limits and there is no "supernatural" element then we are left with a purely deterministic outcome (with possible random elements thrown in) when it comes to the choices we make.
What I think you're missing is the fact that while ions, proteins and even neurons are incapable of anything approaching "thought," and certainly don't make "decisions," entire brains do accomplish those tricks. Brains can assign meaning to individual molecules (for example, the label "neurotransmitter") which aren't properties of the chemicals themselves. Hell, we can't even perceive our own brain's "visual center," as it's too well integrated into the rest of the brain - we just "see." The fact that brains are largely segmented, with different areas having "responsibility" for different tasks, is not something which a brain is capable of discovering for itself in isolation.quote:
Having said all of this I will agree with Kil and continue to live my life as if I do have true Free Will, because if the factors that create determinism are far too complex for me to fathom on any basis and the illusion is quite complete. Happy in my illusion I guess, plus it just feels better.
This brings to mind another idea: how is it that one could distinguish - in a practical manner - between "Free Will," "free will," and an illusion of free will? If there can be no test which allows us to tell them apart, then what's the point of this discussion? More importantly, why would naturalism actively deny a free will in such a case? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2005 : 13:35:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by bloody_peasant
First let me define what I see as Free Will. If we were somehow able to add up ALL of the factors leading up to a potential choice for an individual including the internal brain biology and assuming we had the knowledge to predict actions based on neurology, than an individual with true Free Will would be able to make a choice that violated our prediction. They would in sum be able to make decisions based not on the accumulated list of effects, but on some other arbitrary criteria thus breaking the chain of cause and effect.
Ah.
So let's take our handy-dandy Star Trek-style medical transporter (what, you don't have one?), and remove ensign ForgettableName's brain out of his head, into a canister with a time statis field. Luckily for us, we can have the transporter make a duplicate (down to the electron) brain in a second canister. The first canister contains the "test brain," and the duplicate is the "control brain."
We pose a dilemma to the "control brain," wait for it to reach a decision, and record that decision. We then pose the same problem to the "test brain," and see if it reaches the same decision. (We turn the statis fields on and off as appropriate to absolutely limit the inputs and processing, and we ensure a heavy radiation shield around the brains to keep stray gamma rays from affecting one brain only.)
If I'm reading you correctly, bloody_peasant, no matter how many times we repeat the experiment (even creating brand new duplicat brains each time, to ensure an identical starting point), the test brain will always agree with the control brain if there is no Free Will. Not only that, but it should take the same amount of time for the two brains to reach the same decisions.
However, I think this would only work if the radioactive atoms are removed from the brain(s) and replaced with their chemically-identical non-radioactive cousins before any question was posed. To reiterate this point: carbon 14 doesn't decay into carbon 12 (which would be chemically identical and not affect anything), it decays into nitrogen, a chemically-different atom which will cause the molecules of which it (the original C14) was a part to take on a different shape, at the very least (and proteins are all about function following form).
This decay "breaking" important molecules in even a single neuron has the potential to make the test brain's decision different from the control brain's. It may still do so deterministically (post-decay event), but it makes the above-described test unable to disprove Free Will.quote:
PS This is quite fun >:-D
Yes. More later, no time now. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2005 : 14:32:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
This brings to mind another idea: how is it that one could distinguish - in a practical manner - between "Free Will," "free will," and an illusion of free will? If there can be no test which allows us to tell them apart, then what's the point of this discussion? More importantly, why would naturalism actively deny a free will in such a case?
I was wondering, in my blissful ignorance - in what, then, to purely practical purposes, does a 100% deterministic brain differ from any other sort of destiny? Certainly, there would not be the gloss of religion and the supernatural and therefore, not predictable by tarot cards or whatever you may -- but, all in all, wouldn't it be the same? |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
