Current state of the debate between free will and determinism in philosophy and neuroscience

[Eise]

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

Something being unuseful doesn’t negate something being valid and accurate. 

Wasn't it you who said we can use different definitions in different contexts? I gave examples of contexts in which the question if we did something from free will or not, is relevant, and with more or less problems, can be answered (there are of course border cases in which question is not easily answered; also unrealistic science fiction scenarios). For the workings of neurons and their connections the question is irrelevant.

[studiot]

33 minutes ago, iNow said:

It would actually have been made well before that, and if we have a complete enough set of information available then I suggest we COULD determine that response of the audience member in advance (and in fact we’re already doing something quite similar in laboratory conditions with a high degree of accuracy with electrodes and real-time measurement devices connected)

Surely you understand that the point of a multiply blind experiment is a deliberate attempt (as i mentioned earlier) to exlude observer bias so that the observer can't know anything about the randomly selected subject and therefore can't influence the outcome in any way ?

[martillo]

I will take some time to answer @Eise and @studiot questions thinking in how could I express myself better.

[studiot]

15 minutes ago, martillo said:

I will take some time to answer @Eise and @studiot questions thinking in how could I express myself better.

🙂  +1

I believe there has been some talking at cross purposes in this thread.

I also believe that offereing plenty of real examples and discussing and explaining them helps to get your point across.

Edited October 25, 2023 by studiot

[iNow]

28 minutes ago, studiot said:

Surely you understand that the point of a multiply blind experiment is a deliberate attempt (as i mentioned earlier) to exlude observer bias so that the observer can't know anything about the randomly selected subject and therefore can't influence the outcome in any way ?

I wasn’t describing trying to influence an outcome. I described being able to predict it in advance with a meaningful degree of accuracy. 

[studiot]

26 minutes ago, iNow said:

 Iwasn’t describing trying to influence an outcome. I described being able to predict it in advance with a meaningful degree of accuracy. 

But I was since influencing the outcome is a form of determinism, and randomising is the antidote.

Which is why I keep saying the subject is really multifactorial.

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Eventually, those random micro events will aggregate and effect macro scale events, especially in context of the vast epochs of time and universe-level distances under consideration.

I have never had a clear understanding of how random micro events can even do that.  How do we know they don't just cancel each other out and devolve into white noise?  The lines and webs of causality could skate above that.  

As many of the people replying to Heisenberg (who famously wrote of the failure of causality) for the past century have noted, the fact that something cannot be determined or is uncertain by an observer does not mean that the underlying physical phenomena is not causal.

 

5 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

The following goes along with my own thoughts on the matter. Influences are heavily underdetermined, and influences don't make determinants:

In an act of Introspection, we tend to see influences as multiple forking paths, and we create the impression of our Self having agency in selecting from those paths.  I cannot tell if that's an accurate impression or not.  It does seem that causality is not linear and I have much doubt there can only be one way the Big Bang plays out in me now typing the word "heteroconsanguineousflurb."

 

[martillo]

 

Well, I took sometime rereading the thread and rethinking about my approach. I think that in refuting the OP approach we all, @iNow, @studiot, @Eise and even @TheVat agree in that some "free will" does exist although some limitation is always present because some conditions are always present prior to any possible event we consider. I'm not really sure why are we discussing so much. Seems we are trying to reach a good agreement in how that kind of "free will" could be defined.

My approach was to call it "conditioned will" stating that the called "free will" (as defined in dictionaries) actually would not exist. What I tried to mean is that a total "free will" would not exist and seems we all also agree in that, am I wrong here? Only some "degree of freedom" exist sometimes for us to make decisions.

I don't find contradictions in my approach but please feel free to mention if there is any. May be naming it "conditioned will" could lead to some confusion but as for now I cannot think in a better name for it. Is there any?

What I don't understand is just about the "compatibilists" approach of both concepts of "free will" and "determinism" being compatible presented by @Eise. For me they both cannot coexist simultaneously.

 

Now, @studiot claimed for a good example of the kind of free will we are all talking about and I posted the video of the dogs playing with a balloon in a beach. For me the dogs at the beach have made a choice with a high degree of freedom in their decision. There's nothing forcing the dogs to play with the balloon, isn't it? They are doing it just because they wanted to do it. I don't understand why @studiot finds it not a good example to treat.

 

As for @Eise question:

8 hours ago, Eise said:

How is this 'degree of freedom' possible in a deterministic world?

Everything in the universe obeys the physics' laws but we can intervene in it making changes like sending a space probe to mars so there must be some degree of freedom in the universe's "mechanics" for that be possible. I don't get what you don't understand about this.

Edited October 25, 2023 by martillo

[AIkonoklazt]

5 hours ago, TheVat said:

In an act of Introspection, we tend to see influences as multiple forking paths, and we create the impression of our Self having agency in selecting from those paths.  I cannot tell if that's an accurate impression or not.  It does seem that causality is not linear and I have much doubt there can only be one way the Big Bang plays out in me now typing the word "heteroconsanguineousflurb."

 

Human agency to me is akin to putting autopilot on pause, or straining against the autopilot (braking/steering against, whatever you want to call it). An exercise of will (not going to call it "free" because of the baggage) seems to me involve both of the following:

1. Conscious attention. When habitually doing something, we don't really have to pay attention. Or even pay attention at all. We can do things without realizing until after the fact. That would be allowing a habitual action instead of exercising choice.
2. Conscious effort. This is the critical thing. "Effortless decision making" doesn't make sense to me. If there is effort involved, however small, what is going on? The effort of conscious thought doesn't count as an exercise of will?

As an aside, I looked at the review/blog article pointed to by iNow. One thing stuck out at me that smells of hypocrisy:

Quote

Compatibilists also seem to hold the palpably false idea that society would fall apart if we didn’t think we had free will. Well, Sapolsky, Sam Harris, and I don’t, yet we don’t run amok. The fact is that we feel like and act like we have free will, even if we know otherwise, and that is enough.

...Okay, so the exception of the aforementioned "enough" is applied to this "we" (determinists such as the author) but not the law? Why shouldn't the law itself also "act like we have free will"?

[iNow]

5 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

I looked at the review/blog article pointed to by iNow

Oh, so you’re the one.  

[Eise]

10 hours ago, martillo said:

Everything in the universe obeys the physics' laws but we can intervene in it making changes like sending a space probe to mars

And I do not understand why you do not see that this is a contradiction. 'Everything' includes playing dogs and humans sending space probes to Mars. So the playing dogs and we also obey the laws of physics, so how can these 'intervene'?

Let's make a formal argument:

Your premises:

1. Everything in the universe obeys the laws of physics.
2. Dogs and humans can intervene in the deterministic flow of the universe

Conclusion:

• Dogs and humans do not exist in this universe.

So hidden in your position is dualism: there is an aspect of reality, as illustrated with your playing dogs and humans sending a space probe to Mars, that is not subject to the laws of physics. 

10 hours ago, martillo said:

there must be some degree of freedom in the universe's "mechanics"

And this is simply a gap in your explanation. Where does this "degree of freedom" come from? It cannot lie in the 'deterministic part' of the universe, because that is excluded by you ("For me they both cannot coexist simultaneously.").

 

10 hours ago, martillo said:

What I don't understand is just about the "compatibilists" approach of both concepts of "free will" and "determinism" being compatible presented by @Eise. For me they both cannot coexist simultaneously.

It obviously depends on the definition of 'free will' you are using. In your definition, sure, they are incompatible. But as said above, using your definition, and still allowing for some degree of free will, is inconsistent.

In my definition determinism is a necessary condition of free will to exist. My claim is that my definition 

• fits to our experience (we can act according our personal preferences)
• is not derived from the ideological ballast of Christianity about free will (to explain the existence of evil in the world)
• is useful in the contexts where the question if an action was free or not is relevant
• doesn't suffer from all kinds of (modal) logical problems ('could have done otherwise')
• is consistent with a naturalistic world view

[martillo]

55 minutes ago, Eise said:

And I do not understand why you do not see that this is a contradiction. 'Everything' includes playing dogs and humans sending space probes to Mars. So the playing dogs and we also obey the laws of physics, so how can these 'intervene'?

Let's make a formal argument:

Your premises:

1. Everything in the universe obeys the laws of physics.
2. Dogs and humans can intervene in the deterministic flow of the universe

Conclusion:

• Dogs and humans do not exist in this universe.

So hidden in your position is dualism: there is an aspect of reality, as illustrated with your playing dogs and humans sending a space probe to Mars, that is not subject to the laws of physics. 

This reasoning is wrong because you are making a considerable mistake. The "free will" we are talking about is about DECISIONS, is about to make CHOICES. Is not about the actions someone make but about the DECISION or the CHOICE to make that action. Any action in the universe obeys all the laws of physics but is the DECISIONS or CHOICES that do not obey any of them. 

1 hour ago, Eise said:

And this is simply a gap in your explanation. Where does this "degree of freedom" come from? It cannot lie in the 'deterministic part' of the universe, because that is excluded by you ("For me they both cannot coexist simultaneously.").

May be there's  misunderstanding about "degrees of freedom" here. The universe has a dynamic obeying the laws of physics but is not totally deterministic because its future is not predetermined. Its future does not depend only in its state in the past but also in those DECISIONS or CHOICES that the beings in it with enough developed brains can make at some time on the actions being or to be performed in it. It follows that there are some degrees of freedom in the dynamics of the universe to be able to perform some of the many (may be even infinite) different actions possible at some time.

Note that I include as inside the universe all the beings living in it with all their DECISIONS or CHOICES.

 

[Eise]

Are 'choices' and 'decisions' determined? Don't you think there is a neural correlate to decisions and choices? If not, where do they come from?

And do not forget that actions often are based on choices and decisions. You  do not get away so easy...

[martillo]

2 minutes ago, Eise said:

Are 'choices' and 'decisions' determined? Don't you think there is a neural correlate to decisions and choices? If not, where do they come from?

Choices or decisions can come as a result of thinking. Thinking is not just a product of some "neural network" in which the outputs are completely determined by their inputs. How the process of thinking actually happens in a brain I think is still a totally unresolved mystery.

[Eise]

And how would you like to solve this mystery? Scientific investigation (neurology)? But given that determinism is an assumption of being able to do science, how can you expect a none-deterministic explanation?

In other words, you shift your 'explanation' of '(a tiny bit of) free will' to a mystery. That is not acceptable, not for science, and not for philosophy.

Fully embracing determinism however 'evaporates' the problem. We then only have to carefully investigate what we mean, when we are assuming free will. 'Acting according your preferences' is the meaning that works in relevant contexts, and is not inconsistent with determinism, and so not with naturalism and science.

[martillo]

12 minutes ago, Eise said:

And how would you like to solve this mystery? Scientific investigation (neurology)? But given that determinism is an assumption of being able to do science, how can you expect a none-deterministic explanation?

In other words, you shift your 'explanation' of '(a tiny bit of) free will' to a mystery. That is not acceptable, not for science, and not for philosophy.

I don't know precisely how the mystery would be solved. May be the current research and development in artificial intelligence (AI) could give a new light on the subject. I mean, current research about if AI could really be equivalent to human's intelligence or not could give a help to solve the mystery.

[Eise]

2 minutes ago, martillo said:

I don't know precisely how the mystery would be solved. May be the current research and development in artificial intelligence (AI) could give a new light on the subject.

But those Large Language Models are based on deterministic and digital programs! Not quantum computing, no analog systems (that can have some imprecision compared to a digital computer). How can a guaranteed deterministic system shed light on 'the mystery of decisions and choices', that, according to you, are not determined?

[martillo]

3 minutes ago, Eise said:

But those Large Language Models are based on deterministic and digital programs! Not quantum computing, no analog systems (that can have some imprecision compared to a digital computer). How can a guaranteed deterministic system shed light on 'the mystery of decisions and choices', that, according to you, are not determined?

May be, just may be, the research on the area could give a more precise difference between AI and human's natural intelligence and that could in principle (not totally sure) help in understanding better the process of thinking in a brain. As I said, actually I'm not sure how the mystery would be solved, is just my guess at the moment. 

[studiot]

13 hours ago, martillo said:

Now, @studiot claimed for a good example of the kind of free will we are all talking about and I posted the video of the dogs playing with a balloon in a beach. For me the dogs at the beach have made a choice with a high degree of freedom in their decision. There's nothing forcing the dogs to play with the balloon, isn't it? They are doing it just because they wanted to do it. I don't understand why @studiot finds it not a good example to treat.

Thank you for properly joining the debate. +1

 

You have posted the explanation I asked for about your video, the explanation that should have been in the same post as the video.

See how easy that was ?

 

I can now offer my comments which are that I do not find it surprising that the dogs chased the balloon.

Dogs are a hunting animal that catches prey by chasing them, unlike some hunting animals that doe not chase such as many spiders.

 

Having said that I think Eise is placing too much emphasis on a particular type of determinism.

So I will move my spotlight from free will to determinism, and then offer a new example for discussion.

 

The Universe contains more than one kind of object and English divides these into two classes, although it could be argued that there are at least borderline objects with a foot in both camps, if not more actual distinct classes.

Formally these are called abtract nouns and concrete nouns respectively.

Concrete nouns have a physical presence in the Universe and obey the laws of Physics.
However as you point out not all these laws are deterministic. Some are random in nature.

Abstract nouns do not necessarily obey the laws of Physics.

So here is my new example.

Recently I posted a comment in a thread about artificial intelligence involving pictures I had selected.

Ahah  'selected' .  Do I detect some free will creeping in ?

I could have selected each picture from a list of candidate pictures, each of which would have acceptably represented the meaning intended.

But the selection could have been made by some random process, which could not have been uniquely determined.

 

 

 

[martillo]

9 minutes ago, studiot said:

I can now offer my comments which are that I do not find it surprising that the dogs chased the balloon.

Dogs are a hunting animal that catches prey by chasing them, unlike some hunting animals that doe not chase such as many spiders.

But the dogs perfectly recognize the balloon is not a prey. They are not hunting it just playing with it and each dog has freely decided to play the "game". Is not the case for instance of a dogs' exhibition where the dogs were trained to follow a trainer's directives. The dogs simply and naturally decided to play with a balloon. Isn't this a good example of the kind of "free will" we are talking about?

17 minutes ago, studiot said:

Abstract nouns do not necessarily obey the laws of Physics.

The process of thinking involves this kind of nouns, the abstract nouns, so it would follow that the process of thinking does not obey the laws of Physics. Would that be right for you?

[studiot]

17 minutes ago, martillo said:

The process of thinking involves this kind of nouns, the abstract nouns, so it would follow that the process of thinking does not obey the laws of Physics. Would that be right for you?

I don't know.

But

How did "do not necessarily obey"  (my words)  become "do not obey"  (your words)  ?

Further thinking could be one of those borderline nouns since thoughts themselves are abstract, but they need something physical to give them existence.

Free will is a type of thought so also needs something to support it.

So free will entails some measure of  obedience to some physical laws.

 

23 minutes ago, martillo said:

But the dogs perfectly recognize the balloon is not a prey. They are not hunting it just playing with it and each dog has freely decided to play the "game". Is not the case for instance of a dogs' exhibition where the dogs were trained to follow a trainer's directives. The dogs simply and naturally decided to play with a balloon. Isn't this a good example of the kind of "free will" we are talking about?

Dogs will chase objects, even when they don't actually know what the object is or is not. Take a dog for a walk and throw a stone, stick, ball something concealed in your hand.

[martillo]

45 minutes ago, studiot said:

Dogs will chase objects, even when they don't actually know what the object is or is not. Take a dog for a walk and throw a stone, stick, ball something concealed in your hand.

I think you are not understanding dogs appropriately. In that case the dog thinks you want to play something with him and will try to bring the thing back to you.

[studiot]

34 minutes ago, martillo said:

I think you are not understanding dogs appropriately. In that case the dog thinks you want to play something with him and will try to bring the thing back to you.

 

15 hours ago, martillo said:

dogs playing with a balloon in a beach.

Your words, not mine.

I think you could profitably review your ability to credit other people as well as contradict them.

So what is different in a dog's psyche compared my rabbit's, that my rabbit does not chase balls or balloons ?

Cats are also hunters and also chase moving objects, but do not play fetch.

 

@Eise

 

Here is a passage from Robert Mills examining the place of determinism in Physics

Edited October 26, 2023 by studiot

[martillo]

2 hours ago, studiot said:

So what is different in a dog's psyche compared my rabbit's, that my rabbit does not chase balls or balloons ?

Cats are also hunters and also chase moving objects, but do not play fetch.

There are more or less intelligent animals. The ability to play some games is characteristic of more intelligent animals. May be rabbits and cats are not so intelligent as dogs.

[TheVat]

It seems to me that defining free will in a deterministic universe is a semantic trick.  I have never much liked compatibilism for that reason.  If the choice I freely made was determined by events set in motion by the Big Bang then it is not really free, and no amount of folk psychology (it felt free!) (no one stopped me!) will change that.  And randomness doesn't really rescue free will, either.  If my decisions happen at the whim of random antecedent events then I am not really exercising free will in making a choice.  My feeling of free choice is an illusion.

I just don't think a physicalist view can ever allow us to be truly volitional agents - our selves cannot be an instigating cause that moves downward through functional levels.  We are not causal agents.  But it's necessary to our mental and social health to proceed with life as if we are.  Quite the conundrum.

Edited October 26, 2023 by TheVat
nada