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

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Eise said:

With other words, there must exist something like 'conscious behaviour', otherwise evolution has no way to select for conscious organisms: consciousness would have no evolutionar advantage.

Trying not to get lost in finding perfect words, but we DO have "conscious behavior," that DOES lead to outcomes in a causal way, and IS selected for in the course of evolution, but the "conscious behavior" itself is also beyond any "conscious" influence. It all occurs BEFORE we're "conscious" of it, before we're aware of it, and the narrative our minds generate comes AFTER any behaviors or "choices" are already decided.

Our centuries of false understandings on this topic makes using words to explain it properly quite difficult, not unlike trying to use English to explain quantum and relativistic behaviors, but as there is no clean math nor equations (yet) for the mind, I'm doing my best and hoping we don't simply get lost in imperfect words with lots of historical baggage and subjective interpretation.

From a chronological and location based frame of reference, consciousness and awareness come AFTER the "choice" or "decision" is made. We then explain it with a post-dictive narrative. 

31 minutes ago, Eise said:

I would like you to work out this 'sometimes'. In what situations does, in your vocabulary, 'will' exists (and we are not completely determined, and in what kind of situations is everything determined, leaving no room for 'will'.

Seconded. That "sometimes yes, sometimes no" part baffles me, and remains vague to the point of being useless IMO. 

 

12 minutes ago, martillo said:

Sometimes there is not zero degree of freedom and we are able to make choices or decisions.

Sometimes, like when / what?

We agree that I can't "free will" myself into gestating a baby in my belly as a male human, or that I can't "free will" myself into growing wings out of my earlobes, but you seem to be asserting that there ARE instances where we can "free will" our decisions and choices consciously and in a manner unrelated to the chemistry driving our nervous systems. 

So, what do you think ARE those times? What examples can you give? My position is there is no such possibility, but you keep asserting otherwise so I assume that you MUST have something tangible to offer in support of that assertion, something more than "I simply cannot allow myself to believe I don't have a freedom beyond my neural chemistry to choose my path," right??

Edited November 2, 2023 by iNow

[martillo]

56 minutes ago, iNow said:

Sometimes, like when / what?

We agree that I can't "free will" myself into gestating a baby in my belly as a male human, or that I can't "free will" myself into growing wings out of my earlobes, but you seem to be asserting that there ARE instances where we can "free will" our decisions and choices consciously and in a manner unrelated to the chemistry driving our nervous systems. 

So, what do you think ARE those times? What examples can you give? My position is there is no such possibility, but you keep asserting it so you must have something tangible to offer in support of it.

I don't agree with you at all and seems useless to discuss with you, I have already told you. Don't you remember all of our previous discussions even with an example as you asked? For instance:

 

On 10/31/2023 at 8:26 PM, martillo said:

That topic about our consciousness being a "post-dictive" illusion of the mind  and we being just a spectator of what is happening in our reality, as you agreed, is another topic for me. May be you should open a new thread for that but even in a new one I don't know if I could give a positive contribution...

One thing I'm sure: that is a very strong determinism, total determinism, absolutely.

 

On 10/31/2023 at 11:20 PM, martillo said:

On 10/31/2023 at 10:27 PM, iNow said:

Given this, in your opinion, why isn’t “spectator” an accurate description of our experience? 

I would ask you which is your experience? Do you experience your entire life just as an spectator of yourself in the reality you live? I mean remembering Hawking citation: useless to think at some time about what to do because the future is predetermined and you can do nothing to change anything? Then, useless to think about anything in your entire life?

I would also ask: why are you discussing with me then? Wouldn't it be because it could at lest be useful to solve some problem? Problem yours, mine or whoever could read this thread?

I don't experience my life that way. I feel as I'm driving my life as I can confronting problems I find in my way. Problems I could solve thinking and doing something about. For me the future is not predetermined and I can think and do things towards some things I would like in that future.

That would be in summary my experience. Which is your experience? Please answer this appropriately.

 

On 10/31/2023 at 1:26 AM, martillo said:

On 10/30/2023 at 11:31 PM, iNow said:

You assert this, seemingly without having any knowledge about the way your mind functions and how chemo-electricity is making those decisions before you even “think” them.

You seem to have convinced yourself that the post-dictive narrative the language centers in your brain created AFTER the decision event occurred was the event itself.

It's not. It’s just a story you tell yourself. 

I know neuronal cells can interchange information through electric impulses and chemical neuro-transmitters.

Seems you are not considering that if the subject we are considering runs at a small enough velocity the brain have time to transform some quantity of "chemo-electric" information it receives to language, rationalize on it and finally take a choice/decision on some possible action we could perform in consequence. 

For instance in the given example of discussing here in the forum: at some moment I saw your post but took my time to read it, understand it, rationalize about, google something, drink some soda, elaborate an answer and finally write this answer to you.

I don't know exactly how the brain is capable to do all that. May be is all "chemo-electrical", I don't know. As I said some time ago the process of thinking is still a mystery for me. But I know I made some purely rational choices/decisions in that process BEFORE the final decision to post it. 

In summary quite now I was able to make choices/decisions.

 

I think you are lost in a very unreal wrong belief about neuronal brain and consciousness and you don't have any intention to reconsider it. As I already told you I will not discuss anymore about this with you.

Edited November 2, 2023 by martillo

[iNow]

4 hours ago, martillo said:

I think you are lost in a very unreal wrong belief about neuronal brain and consciousness

What part of my understanding of neural chemistry and the locations of decision events being before conscious centers of the brain do you think is mistaken? The evidence is on my side here, so curious what evidence you have which leads you to conclude I am "lost" and have "a very unreal wrong belief."

I'm quite open to correction, but you have yet to demonstrate I'm wrong. 

There are minor criticisms of some individual studies, but the preponderance of evidence in aggregate very heavily leans toward my side of this issue:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

[MJ kihara]

5 hours ago, iNow said:

consciousness and awareness come AFTER the "choice" or "decision" is made.

Offer some clarification about that pliz? In the above case where does the choice or decision comes from?

I think the act of deciding is by its self part of consciousness...we should not treat consciousness based on our human capacity as the final definition...I think there are various levels of consciousness depending on the amount of awareness and the extent of deciding(how far you can make unrestricted decision).

[martillo]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

What part of my understanding of neural chemistry and the locations of decision events being before conscious centers of the brain do you think is mistaken?

Well, seems obvious for me, let me try to explain my viewpoint...

The reality we live is composed with objects in it (we included) and process happening internally in those objects (we included) and externally between those objects.

The processes inside us include those you mention neural processes happening very fast where may be some choices/decisions are taken and the correspondent actions happen before our consciousness takes place, fine. I would call them intuitive "quite instantaneous" choices/decisions and actions we perform. 

Now, outside of us we can perceive processes with our senses (eyes, years, etc.) happening much more slowly. Slowly enough that we can intervene in them with conscious choices/decisions and posterior conscious actions. We are conscious about those process and the actions we perform to "drive" them someway. That's the way we can consciously act in our reality.

 

2 hours ago, iNow said:

The evidence is on my side here, so curious what evidence you have which leads you to conclude I am "lost" and have "a very unreal wrong belief."

Your link presents evidence just to the "intuitive "quite instantaneous" choices/decisions and actions we perform" I mentioned above. There's no analysis on slow processes. There's no analysis on conscious processes. 

My evidence is present in the process of answering you here in this thread what I have already posted to you, repeated in the post above and repeated again now about the example I already gave to you:

"Seems you are not considering that if the subject we are considering runs at a small enough velocity the brain have time to transform some quantity of "chemo-electric" information it receives to language, rationalize on it and finally take a choice/decision on some possible action we could perform in consequence. "

"For instance in the given example of discussing here in the forum: at some moment I saw your post but took my time to read it, understand it, rationalize about, google something, drink some soda, elaborate an answer and finally write this answer to you."

"I don't know exactly how the brain is capable to do all that. May be is all "chemo-electrical", I don't know. As I said some time ago the process of thinking is still a mystery for me. But I know I made some purely rational choices/decisions in that process BEFORE the final decision to post it."

 

Why do you continue ignoring this as evidence? You mentioned nothing about it. If you ignore this as evidence how could I continue discussing with you? What kind of evidence would you consider as valid one? 

 

Edited November 2, 2023 by martillo

[iNow]

6 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

I think the act of deciding is by its self part of consciousness

This is what I’ve been referring to as a post-dictive narrative, a story you make up after the decision event already occurred. See link in previous post 

5 hours ago, martillo said:

that we can intervene in them with conscious choices/decisions and posterior conscious actions.

Has anyone demonstrated these actual exist? The literature I’ve been reading the last few decades implies occurrence before consciousness 

5 hours ago, martillo said:

Your link presents evidence just to the "intuitive "quite instantaneous" choices/decisions and actions we perform" I mentioned above. There's no analysis on slow processes. There's no analysis on conscious processes.

Are you suggesting they’re somehow different, somehow disconnected from the way the rest of our nervous system functions?

5 hours ago, martillo said:

Why do you continue ignoring this as evidence?

Because it’s not even just your opinion. It’s not even wrong, and it’s definitely not evidence. 

Edited November 3, 2023 by iNow

[martillo]

34 minutes ago, iNow said:

Has anyone demonstrated these actual exist? The literature I’ve been reading the last few decades implies occurrence before consciousness 

Literature? I loked for studies about consciousness in slow processes and didn't find anything. May be could be a good field of research...

34 minutes ago, iNow said:

Has anyone demonstrated these actual exist? The literature I’ve been reading the last few decades implies occurrence before consciousness 

Seems not. So obvious that would need no demonstration. But also could be a good field of research...

34 minutes ago, iNow said:

Are you suggesting they’re somehow different, somehow disconnected from the way the rest of our nervous system functions?

No.

34 minutes ago, iNow said:

Because it’s not even just your opinion. It’s not even wrong, and it’s definitely not evidence. 

I didn't expect something different from you. That's why I didn't want to continue discussing with you and still don't want to but you continue asking me things. I should not answer you anymore...

Edited November 3, 2023 by martillo

[iNow]

1 hour ago, martillo said:

So obvious that would need no demonstration.

So, IINM, you’re entire argument here boils down to, “Just trust me, bruh!”

6 hours ago, martillo said:

Your link presents evidence just to the "intuitive "quite instantaneous" choices/decisions and actions we perform" I mentioned above. There's no analysis on slow processes. There's no analysis on conscious processes. 

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Are you suggesting they’re somehow different, somehow disconnected from the way the rest of our nervous system functions?

1 hour ago, martillo said:

No

Please elaborate then. What are you suggesting?

[martillo]

57 minutes ago, iNow said:

So, IINM, you’re entire argument here boils down to, “Just trust me, bruh!”

Please elaborate then. What are you suggesting?

I would suggest you to continue this your subject on your own or with other ones, not with me.

Edited November 3, 2023 by martillo

[iNow]

Why do you continually refuse to answer direct questions? I have not attacked you, yet you act as if you’ve been wronged or offended. 

[MJ kihara]

8 hours ago, martillo said:

"I don't know exactly how the brain is capable to do all that. May be is all "chemo-electrical", I don't know. As I said some time ago the process of thinking is still a mystery for me. But I know I made some purely rational choices/decisions in that process BEFORE the final decision to post it."

Would you like the mystery to be broken down into parts that can be solved or trying to solve the mystery it's a mystery on itself?

54 minutes ago, martillo said:

I would suggest you to continue this your subject on your own or with other ones, not with me.

The wonderfulness of the brain is a mystery that should not be looked at,is what you are implying?

[martillo]

50 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

Would you like the mystery to be broken down into parts that can be solved or trying to solve the mystery it's a mystery on itself?

I don't know would the mystery will be solved. Better the second option having no rules to solve a mystery.

50 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

The wonderfulness of the brain is a mystery that should not be looked at,is what you are implying?

No, just for iNow to not ask me more questions. 

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Why do you continually refuse to answer direct questions? I have not attacked you, yet you act as if you’ve been wronged or offended. 

You say you don't believe what I say. Why to continue asking questions to me?

You don't open questions to anybody else. Why just me?

???

By the way, I have nothing else to add to the subject I think. I will not stay just repeating what I have already said.

 

Edited November 3, 2023 by martillo

[Eise]

18 hours ago, iNow said:

Trying not to get lost in finding perfect words, but we DO have "conscious behavior," that DOES lead to outcomes in a causal way, and IS selected for in the course of evolution (...)

"Conscious behaviour", but consciousness plays no causal role?

18 hours ago, iNow said:

 (...) but the "conscious behavior" itself is also beyond any "conscious" influence

Now that is as unclear as Martillo's 'sometimes'. If consciousness is the basis for 'conscious behaviour', meaning nothing else then that consciousness has at least something to do with behaviour, then consciousness somehow plays a causal role. To require that 'the "conscious behavior" itself is also beyond any "conscious" influence' is exactly where I protest against: you seem to think that you must be able to want what you want, instead of being able to do what you want.

3 hours ago, martillo said:

By the way, I have nothing else to add to the subject I think. I will not stay just repeating what I have already said.

The minimum that this implies is that you cannot express your thoughts clearly enough that we really understand your point. The maximum is that you do not understand it yourself: that you realise there are gaps in your explanations, and even might be contradictory. It seems your looking for the right replacement of the words 'free will' instead of clearly defining the concept of free will. Your search for the right words shows that you are looking for words that sound acceptable, but in reality just shift the problem under the carpet.

This is the philosophy forum, which implies that viewpoint should be argumentative supported. That needs clear definitions, not vague ones like 'sometimes'. 

Edited November 3, 2023 by Eise

[iNow]

4 hours ago, Eise said:

Conscious behaviour", but consciousness plays no causal role?

Our behaviors of course are themselves a variable that in influences other things in a causal manner, but these too are selected prior to our conscious awareness of them. Better?

4 hours ago, Eise said:

To require that 'the "conscious behavior" itself is also beyond any "conscious" influence' is exactly where I protest against:

I understand, but the addition of the word “conscious” in no way changes where and when in the mind the behavior was initiated… that was before / prior to conscious awareness of it. 

Edited November 3, 2023 by iNow

[Eise]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Our behaviors of course are themselves a variable that in influences other things in a causal manner, but these too are selected prior to our conscious awareness of them. Better?

Better. But not good enough. It still does not explain why we are conscious, i.e. how we explain that consciousness exists. What is the evolutionary advantage? I would say that it is the capability to:

1. observe the environment
2. see how you self are placed in this environment
3. can anticipate different possible actions, and reflect on the results thereof
4. compare this with your aims, interests, needs, desires etc
5. choose the action that fits best

Now if all these steps are initiated at an unconscious level, does it change anything? It is only the last step where the question of free will comes into play: can I choose the action with which I can identify myself; or am I forced to do something against my aims, interests, needs, desires etc?

Your arguments are valid when you would argue against libertarian free will. But how would they be arguments against compatibilist free will?

And may I assume, given your position, that in planning and building e.g. the LHC, the consciousness of none of planners, builders, engineers, physicists etc plays a role?

And the Libet experiments are pretty useless in my eyes. In the first place, if you are a naturalist, one should not be surprised at all by the results of these experiments. Everything has a 'causal fore-play', so it would be astonishing to see my 'action plans' pop out of nothing, and causing my behaviour. In the second place is the experiment too artificial, compared with situations in which the idea of free will really plays a role. The task for the subjects of the Libet experiments is to flex their hand without a reason, just spontaneous. So the flexing of the hand, the moment when I am doing this, is in no way personally relevant, so really no model of an action for which the question of free will is relevant. 

 

[iNow]

37 minutes ago, Eise said:

Better. But not good enough. It still does not explain why we are conscious,

That to me seems to be a separate question, and it's strange to fault me for not bothering to address it. 

39 minutes ago, Eise said:

And may I assume, given your position, that in planning and building e.g. the LHC, the consciousness of none of planners, builders, engineers, physicists etc plays a role?

This seems unrelated to my stance, so again I'll politely ignore it.

Nothing in our normal day-to-day experience changes just bc I'm highlighting that the decision events appear to occur prior to us realizing any conscious awareness of them. 

41 minutes ago, Eise said:

the Libet experiments are pretty useless in my eyes

That's fine. There have been a multitude of others in the decades since, and all point in the same direction. 

42 minutes ago, Eise said:

it would be astonishing to see my 'action plans' pop out of nothing, and causing my behaviour.

As I'm sure you can see, this is a bit of a strawman. Nobody is claiming they pop out of nothing, only that the chemistry occurs prior to conscious awareness. 

[AIkonoklazt]

On 11/1/2023 at 5:25 PM, iNow said:

 

What else would they be when viewed at the level of chemistry in our nervous systems? 

The very label of them as “rational” or “passive” is itself an arbitrary narrative being applied AFTER the creation and awareness of the thought. 

 

 

...what makes the labels "creation" and "awareness" any less arbitrary? Creation/awareness of exactly what, by what, which is demonstrated by which observation? "What else," indeed. That's the problem. On "that level," there is only chemistry and no consciousness to speak of. From there, your only choice is epiphenominalism if you want to include consciousness at all.

 

[martillo]

I'm returning to the thread because I have made an extensive search in terminology and have found what I was looking for while discussing, the right word: volition.

One definition of volition: "the power or faculty of choosing". 

Googling: "the faculty or power of using one's will".

So for me, to avoid misspellings and misunderstandings, the question "does free will exist or not?" should be better phrased as "does volition exist or not?"

My answer is: Sometimes. It depends on the conditions which are always present. Sometimes the conditions completely determines what is going to happen and we have no choice to do anything about.

Now about the discussions:

I disagree with @Eise because I consider volition and determinism mutually exclusive. Determinism implies the future is predetermined, there are no choices for us to make. I don't understand how compatibilism is actually possible. I'm searching about compatibilism but I need time. May be @Eise could talk something about the key points for compatibilism to be possible. 

I disagree with @iNow because he believes the volition would be always at an unconscious level prior to a "post-dictive narrative" when we just become aware about what happened. We would be just spectators of our own life. I completely disagree with that although I don't have the evidence he required me to present. My reasoning and the example I presented was not enough for him. He considered that just as an "opinion" deserving no consideration and that's why is impossible for me to continue discussing with him. But I will continue thinking about, may be I could find something else with time.

In summary I need time now to continue discussing about...

 

[dimreepr]

22 hours ago, iNow said:

I'm highlighting that the decision events appear to occur prior to us realizing any conscious awareness of them. 

Is that true for every decision though?

The decision to move and place my foot when walking, at one end of the spectrum and the decision to work towards pressing the button at the LHC (assuming the actual button press is prior) at the other, in the spectrum of awareness.

 

8 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

 

 

...what makes the labels "creation" and "awareness" any less arbitrary? Creation/awareness of exactly what, by what, which is demonstrated by which observation? "What else," indeed. That's the problem. On "that level," there is only chemistry and no consciousness to speak of. From there, your only choice is epiphenominalism if you want to include consciousness at all.

 

Why?

3 hours ago, martillo said:

I'm returning to the thread because I have made an extensive search in terminology and have found what I was looking for while discussing, the right word: volition.

One definition of volition: "the power or faculty of choosing". 

Googling: "the faculty or power of using one's will".

So for me, to avoid misspellings and misunderstandings, the question "does free will exist or not?" should be better phrased as "does volition exist or not?"

My answer is: Sometimes. It depends on the conditions which are always present. Sometimes the conditions completely determines what is going to happen and we have no choice to do anything about.

The thing about determinism is knowing where to start; besides "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet"

Edited November 4, 2023 by dimreepr

[martillo]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

The thing about determinism is knowing where to start; besides "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet"

The right naming of things is important for me. Help to avoid misunderstandings.

By the way, I'm reading things about "free will", as it is popularly known, and in several specialized literature "volition" is mentioned.

[iNow]

4 hours ago, martillo said:

disagree with @iNow because he believes the volition would be always at an unconscious level prior to a "post-dictive narrative" when we just become aware about what happened

You’re not disagreeing with me, though. You’re disagreeing with and rejecting all of the evidence collected across decades using precise measurements of neural activity. 
 

4 hours ago, martillo said:

"does volition exist or not?"

My answer is: Sometimes. It depends on the conditions which are always present. Sometimes the conditions completely determines what is going to happen and we have no choice to do anything about.

This remains an incoherent and internally inconsistent position. Which times in your estimation does our “volition” magically ignore physics and chemistry?

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Is that true for every decision though?

Yes

Edited November 4, 2023 by iNow

[TheVat]

The search for free will in a casual matrix reminds me of searching for a vitamin you dropped on the floor, one of those elusive ones that seem to be nowhere.  You check the corners, nope.  In your slippers, nope.  What about skittering under the door and ending up in the hallway?  Nope.  

All that's left is panpsychism.  Which goes back to Platonic idealism, Leibniz, and Russell's neutral monism.   Down the rabbit hole.

[martillo]

Well, I think the subject could be solved in the following way (treating "free will" and "determinism" separately):

About "free will":

The problem is if there exist situations with options for us to make a choice. I think there are a lot, like the different options in the menu of a restaurant, the different candidates in real democratic countries, the different careers at universities and so on. So, situations of making a choice are a lot, in the world  and during our lives. It follows that we do have the power to make choices, we do have volition.

Now the problem of how much free is that volition depends on the degree of freedom the conditions allow at the moment of us making the choices. Sometimes the conditions are so restrictive that we have no choice and the volition is null or that it doesn't actually exist. I can say then that some free volition is possible sometimes. 

Finally and shortly, if "free will" means "free volition" I conclude: "Free will" exists sometimes depending on the conditions present. 

About "determinism":

Any action has a cause and so all actions we make have a cause. There are intuitive actions and rational ones. In intuitive actions we just follow our intuition quite instantaneously. Rational actions need to be thought before making them and take some time. Our intuition is deterministic depending on past and present conditions. Our rationalism seems to be also deterministic because it just uses some deterministic logic to analyze things to give a conclusion for us to make a choice and finally perform a rational action. It follows at the end that there was nothing nondeterministic in the world and the entire universe. The present was determined by the past. The problem is for the future. Is impossible to know or determine all the choices all of us will make in the future. Even we don't know all the choices we will make in the future. Certain randomness and uncertainty is present in the physics of the universe and in our mind. The future is not determined and depends on our choices and actions. "Determinism" does not apply.

 

For my discussion with @iNow and with @Eise:

Note that in my reasoning I admit that our actions are all made deterministically. The problem is that is impossible to know all of the actions we will make in the future. That's why the future is undetermined. This is independent on when, where and how our choices are made in our brain and note that I even didn't mention consciousness. It doesn't matter in this reasoning. I just say to @iNow that I believe we are completely conscious in some choices and actions we make sometimes. I don't believe we are just spectators of our own lives. I don't know how to demonstrate that to you but this is another subject, doesn't actually matters in the discussion of "free will".

 

All comments are welcome...

 

[martillo]

Please note that the post above is not just an "opinion". It is a complete reasoning applying logic on the subject. I think it deserves logical treatment. I think there's no contradictions nor inconsistencies but feel free to point out anything about how it could fail. 

Particularly note the difference I made in the looking at the past and looking at the future. If we analyze the present we find it has been completely determined by the past but the future cannot be determined from the present and the past. 

Edited November 4, 2023 by martillo

[martillo]

I have forgotten to mention that sometimes is used in its precise meaning of not always concept. It is not an introduced vague concept. It is strictly necessary in the statement. It means there that "free will" does exist sometimes while other times it doesn't. It depends on the conditions present. Other consideration is that a totally free will as a totally free volition actually never exist because always some conditions are present. That's true but we must talk then about the degrees of freedom the conditions allow at the moment of making a choice. Is something that also depends on the conditions present.

Edited November 4, 2023 by martillo