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

[iNow]

6 hours ago, martillo said:

Thinking is not just a product of some "neural network" in which the outputs are completely determined by their inputs.

This is a strange conclusion. Of course it is. 

6 hours ago, martillo said:

the process of thinking actually happens in a brain I think is still a totally unresolved mystery

There's still more to learn, but it's hardly an "unresolved mystery," and hasn't been for many decades. 

5 minutes ago, TheVat said:

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.

This is a nice summary, representative also of my stance. +1

[martillo]

12 minutes ago, iNow said:

There's still more to learn, but it's hardly an "unresolved mystery," and hasn't been for many decades. 

While you say "there's still more to learn" you are admitting it is still unresolved.

14 minutes ago, iNow said:

This is a strange conclusion. Of course it is. 

How could you be so sure? The conclusion comes from considering that the current model of neural cells even in a complex network cannot completely explain the ability to think. Do you mean that an artificial "neural network" as considered nowadays can really think? I think something is yet hiding to all we know about. The process of thinking seems something still too complex to be completely understood yet. 

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

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.

Very meaningful. +1

[MJ kihara]

1 hour ago, martillo said:

Do you mean that an artificial "neural network" as considered nowadays can really think?

Before we look at artificial neural network thinking...how do you know you are thinking,what makes someone conclude thinking is taking place?

[iNow]

2 hours ago, martillo said:

While you say "there's still more to learn" you are admitting it is still unresolved.

But hardly still a mystery. 

2 hours ago, martillo said:

The process of thinking seems something still too complex to be completely understood yet. 

Some of us seem to comprehend those processes better than others. 

[martillo]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Some of us seem to comprehend those processes better than others. 

As far as I know all the recent successful advance in artificial intelligence has been done in "conventional" digital computers and not with current neural network models...

2 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

Before we look at artificial neural network thinking...how do you know you are thinking,what makes someone conclude thinking is taking place?

Brains are always thinking except when they are sleeping.

Edited October 26, 2023 by martillo

[iNow]

7 hours ago, martillo said:

As far as I know all the recent successful advance in artificial intelligence has been done in "conventional" digital computers and not with current neural network models...

And AFAIK we’re talking here about free will in humans, not the technology underlying AI

7 hours ago, martillo said:

Brains are always thinking except when they are sleeping.

All you’ve done is restate your assertion. MJk asked how you knew. Would you like another try?

[martillo]

24 minutes ago, iNow said:

And AFAIK we’re talking here about free will in humans, not the technology underlying AI

All you’ve done is restate your assertion. MJk asked how you knew. Would you like another try?

A bit rude I think. Thanks but I will not discuss in these terms.

[iNow]

You’re either unwilling or unable then to respond to the actual discussion taking place bc, what? You have hurt feelings and thin skin? Okay, whatever. 

[Eise]

15 hours ago, TheVat said:

It seems to me that defining free will in a deterministic universe is a semantic trick. 

It is not. It is getting rid of remnants of medieval, Christian ideology. It should explain how an omni-benevolent creator makes a universe in which evil exists: it is the free will that allows people to do evil. God is not responsible. Its modern descendant is the concept of 'libertarian free will': that we can intervene in the otherwise determined universe. (Recognise, @martillo?). Why should we not look more precisely what we exactly mean, when we say that an action is free? Calling such an investigation a 'semantic trick' doesn't do justice to this endeavor. 

15 hours ago, TheVat said:

We are not causal agents.

Of course we are. Everything that can partake in causal relationships is a causal agent. What you mean is that we, as causal agents, are not caused ourselves: that is the illusion of libertarian free will. The point compatibilists are making is that our personal motivations are part of the causal network. And if we, so to speak, can play out our motivations in our actions, then these actions are free. 

15 hours ago, TheVat said:

If the choice I freely made was determined by events set in motion by the Big Bang then it is not really free

That is exactly one side of the coin. The other is that we have causal impact, just as any other thing in the universe. And our motivations are part of the causal network.

One other point that bewitches many people: the so called laws of nature are not laws that enforce us to act in certain ways. They are descriptions of how nature behaves, which includes us. But descriptions cannot enforce anything. We are just part of the flow of the history of the universe. Yes, we are caused, but we also 'cause'. Deterministic incompatibilists have a tendency to overlook the second point. This second point makes us causal agents.

Edited October 27, 2023 by Eise

[iNow]

7 hours ago, Eise said:

We are just part of the flow of the history of the universe. Yes, we are caused, but we also 'cause'. Deterministic incompatibilists have a tendency to overlook the second point. This second point makes us causal agents.

It seems redundant to carve out humans from the universe more broadly. We are components of that universe itself acting deterministically. 

Perhaps not a relevant point, but something I considered upon reading your post. We are the universe expressing itself as a human being for a little while. No need for that 2nd point, really. 

[martillo]

I have found a much better name for the kind of will we were discussing about: "restricted will".

I was calling it "conditioned will" but this sounds someway contradictory. "Restricted will" would be much more appropriated. I maintain the definition I gave to it but I would expressed it now just as:

"Restricted will" is the possible will the conditions allow.

If always conditions are present the possible will is always restricted.

So sometimes would be possible to make decisions or choices but only under certain conditions that are always present.

There would be no "free will" nor "determinism", just a "restricted will".

Much better I think...

 

Edited October 28, 2023 by martillo

[iNow]

If every thought we have and every “decision” we make is just the outcome of chemical interactions which all occur before even becoming conscious or aware of them in the parts of our minds most commonly associated with “self,” well then I don’t suppose it matters whether some subset of them get classified as restricted or conditioned or whatever as they’re ALL restricted by the local configuration of the “thinker” and the basic laws of physics and chemistry.

[martillo]

35 minutes ago, iNow said:

If every thought we have and every “decision” we make is just the outcome of chemical interactions which all occur before even becoming conscious or aware of them in the parts of our minds most commonly associated with “self,” well then I don’t suppose it matters whether some subset of them get classified as restricted or conditioned or whatever as they’re ALL restricted by the local configuration of the “thinker” and the basic laws of physics and chemistry.

Let me simplify what you said:

"... every thought we have and every “decision” we make... they’re ALL restricted by the local configuration of the “thinker” and the basic laws of physics and chemistry."

Looks the same thing I said in a bit more detailed but a bit more complicated way.

I think at the end we agree in the subject.

 

Edited October 28, 2023 by martillo

[TheVat]

On 10/26/2023 at 11:50 PM, Eise said:

That is exactly one side of the coin. The other is that we have causal impact, just as any other thing in the universe. And our motivations are part of the causal network.

I was not saying our actions are not part of a causal web, just trying to make clear why the common usage of "free will" is one that ascribes a particular kind of agency to humans for which there is no evidence.  The compatibilist definition is, as you know, quite distinctly different.  Compatibilists achieve their reconciliation of determinism and free will by means of changing what is meant by free will.  I just find it simpler to skip that and say there is no scientific evidence of free will in the classic meaning.  It doesn't mean I may not personally entertain some metaphysical idea that minds somehow transcend that, but I would not bring that to the science table.

[AIkonoklazt]

On 10/26/2023 at 7:49 AM, TheVat said:

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.

You may not be referring to the terms "influence" and "determinant," but I don't think "influence doesn't equate to determinant" is a semantic trick. Those two terms refer to different things. Can we exclude the term "determinant/determined" and use "influence/influenced" instead?

Re: "set in motion by the Big Bang." As I've pointed out earlier in the thread in another response, infinite regression presumes a mechanistic conception of the mind.

[iNow]

21 hours ago, martillo said:

Looks the same thing I said in a bit more detailed but a bit more complicated way.

I think at the end we agree in the subject

Not if you believe adding qualifiers like “restricted” or “conditioned” in front of the term “will” is an any way useful here

[studiot]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Not if you believe adding qualifiers like “restricted” or “conditioned” in front of the term “will” is an any way useful here

Isn't 'free' a qualifier ?

[martillo]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Not if you believe adding qualifiers like “restricted” or “conditioned” in front of the term “will” is an any way useful here

That would be fine for me. I could state then:

The "will", defined as "the possibility to make choices", does exist sometimes.

Would that be right for you?

There would be no "free will" nor "determinism", just "will" does exist sometimes.

Edited October 29, 2023 by martillo

[iNow]

2 hours ago, studiot said:

Isn't 'free' a qualifier ?

Perhaps, but I’ve already earlier mentioned it doesn’t appear to be free so it strikes me as similarly useless. 

2 hours ago, martillo said:

The "will", defined as "the possibility to make choices", does exist sometimes.

Would that be right for you?

No. Choice implies freedom to do otherwise, which for reasons already noted I reject. 

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, martillo said:

That would be fine for me. I could state then:

The "will", defined as "the possibility to make choices", does exist sometimes.

Would that be right for you?

There would be no "free will" nor "determinism", just "will" does exist sometimes.

The tyrrany of choice does exist, history proves it...🙄

[martillo]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

No. Choice implies freedom to do otherwise, which for reasons already noted I reject. 

Oh, I have misunderstood you. You are a complicated determinist then, like the compatibilists, which at the end admit determinism as valid but giving new meaning to the words (semantics). No agreement at all of course.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

The tyrrany of choice does exist, history proves it...

Another determinist, isn't it?

 

There's no other way. You stay with determinism or with the will. They are mutually exclusive. 

Edited October 29, 2023 by martillo

[iNow]

Monolithic one dimensional labels do a disservice to my actual thinking around this. I don’t align with some crowd. I come at the subject along my own path. 

But yes, I’m complicated. Appreciate the compliment.  

[martillo]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Monolithic one dimensional labels do a disservice to my actual thinking around this. I don’t align with some crowd. I come at the subject along my own path. 

But yes, I’m complicated. Appreciate the compliment.  

The real meaning of the words brings some strong headaches sometimes, particularly if we are worried about the truth and the validity of some statements. English is not my natural language and I have some luck because of that. In the try to not make mistakes I'm always reviewing the meaning of the words I'm using and always try to stay with the simplest vocabulary as possible. I always try to express the things also in simple ways to be understood without doubt in what I pretend to say. So I think I can understand if you are complicated with some subject. The discussions in the forum helped me a lot sometimes in clarifying concepts and in the reaching to the right conclusions I needed although they weren't as I originally liked them to be sometimes. I hope you could solve your complications to be able to have clear thoughts.

By the way, I always try to not make mistakes but I always make some may be everyday...

Edited October 29, 2023 by martillo

[iNow]

1 hour ago, martillo said:

I hope you could solve your complications

Solve them? They define me. 

[martillo]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Solve them? They define me. 

Over-simplifying things is something wrong I admit. Some things have an inherent complexity and trying to over-simplify lead us to misunderstandings and reaching wrong conclusions. But over-complicating things is also not right. In general it is the result of our misunderstanding in something.

In relation to our discussion in this thread I think you could be over-complicating some things. Particularly, the definition of "will" or the meaning of "choice" and "decision" which are used in the "will" definitions, not only that mine but also the dictionaries definitions. Here is where the precise meaning of the words and the right definitions become important. The problem I have in our discussion is that we don't agree even in the meaning of some words. This is the reason why I will not be able to continue the discussion.