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

[AIkonoklazt]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

I didn’t say causality wasn’t a factor. My words are easy to find. I’m not going to spoon feed you

...then causality is a topic. You said yourself that chemistry "occurs prior to conscious awareness."

If that sequence of events isn't causal, then it "wasn't a factor..."

 

[iNow]

I didn’t say it wasn’t causal. Do you have reading comprehension problems we should all be aware of?

[AIkonoklazt]

Just now, iNow said:

I didn’t say it wasn’t causal. Do you have reading comprehension problems we should all be aware of?

Nope. You mentioned chemistry occurring before consciousness. What kind of a sequence is that, then? Causal or not, pick one.

[TheVat]

Perhaps time for a wee review of terms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphenomenalism

[AIkonoklazt]

2 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Perhaps time for a wee review of terms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphenomenalism

Yep, one-way cause. That's what I'm seeing the entire conversation sliding to.

[iNow]

13 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

You mentioned chemistry occurring before consciousness.

Also during. Also after. 

8 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

That's what I'm seeing the entire conversation sliding to.

And I asked you, if not physical and biochemical events, then what pray tell are you suggesting are alternative causes for mentation?

[AIkonoklazt]

Just now, iNow said:

Also during. Also after. 

Then what you said regarding chemistry occurring before consciousness wasn't a meaningful statement. What is the relation between chemistry and consciousness then?

[iNow]

How are you defining consciousness? Thought I’ve mentioned repeatedly that too is off-topic. 

[AIkonoklazt]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

How are you defining consciousness? Thought I’ve mentioned repeatedly that too is off-topic. 

It is the subjective phenomenon experienced from the first person/animal POV. It would be referring to phenomenal consciousness:
 

Quote

“When I am in a conscious mental state, there is something it is like for me to be in that state from the subjective or first-person point of view.”

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Consciousness” (2021), https://iep.utm.edu/consciou/

28 minutes ago, iNow said:

And I asked you, if not physical and biochemical events, then what pray tell are you suggesting are alternative causes for mentation?

I have no idea. I'm not sure what to make of Penrose-esq theories, either. I'm far more interested in what consciousness does or does not entail, rather than theorizing. It may be something unreachable. I would liken it to that old Nova episode illustration where a 2D stick figure is suddenly confronted with a 3D world.

[iNow]

This thread is about freewill, not consciousness 

[AIkonoklazt]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

This thread is about freewill, not consciousness 

Without consciousness, there couldn't be free will.

[Eise]

14 hours ago, martillo said:

Googling I have found Indeterminism defined as:

Is the view that at least some events have no deterministic cause but occur randomly or by chance.

Considering this I find the future undetermined. As examples of types of events that occur randomly or by chance I would mention raining, clima in general, earthquakes, vulcanos' eruptions, etc. I would also mention the typical "quantum states" in elementary particles like electrons which allow events like the "quantum  tunneling" phenomena and allow the possibility of "quantum computing" I think.

Well, it is a fact that we live in a universe that is not deterministic through and through, quantum effects being the exception. However, this is not relevant for free will: free will implies that my actions are really my actions. Quantum jiggles would only be disturbing the connections between my self and my actions.

Your other examples can be distinguished in two categories:

• (partial) ignorance: it is impossible to have a complete overview of all conditions that lead to an event
• deterministic chaos: microscopic changes in initial conditions lead to macroscopic effects

But both these categories are still deterministic! So all three of your 'escape routes' lead to unpredictability, but do not contribute to free will.

@iNow and @TheVat:

We already had the topic of epiphenomalism:

 

And about consciousness and free will:

I listed the reasons why consciousness is an evolutionary advantage:

On 11/3/2023 at 2:40 PM, Eise said:

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

These are all mental processes ('observe', 'see', 'anticipate', 'reflect', 'compare', 'choose'). I have no problem that all these processes run on a determined hardware. But I think it really is not possible to understand free will without taking consciousness into account.

But the only thing really necessary to be able to speak about free will, is that I can observe that my actions are according my own motivations. 

[Eise]

19 hours ago, iNow said:

The issue, of course, is that's the concept used by the masses and hence the context of most discussions.

So you belong to the masses? 

 

[martillo]

1 hour ago, Eise said:

But both these categories are still deterministic! So all three of your 'escape routes' lead to unpredictability, but do not contribute to free will.

The thing became complex for me now. While I intuitively agree with libertarian free will I find really complex now to rationally demonstrate that is really the case. I'm studying deeper the subject but I think I will not reach to a final demonstration. The literature actually present different philosophical currents with their own argumentation but there's no final conclusion of one be true while the other ones being false. The subject has remained unresolved for very long time. I don't pretend now to be able to solve the it on my own. 

On another side I feel cheated with the Stephen Hawking quote I have presented. Actually he wasn't defending "free will" as I believed. That quote is just the beginning of a larger reasoning:

"I have noticed that even people who claim everything is predetermined and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road. ... One cannot base one's conduct on the idea that everything is determined, because one does not know what has been determined. Instead, one has to adopt the effective theory that one has free will and that one is responsible for one's actions. This theory is not very good at predicting human behavior, but we adopt it because there is no chance of solving the equations arising from the fundamental laws. There is also a Darwinian reason that we believe in free will: A society in which the individual feels responsible for his or her actions is more likely to work together and survive to spread its values. (pp. 133-135 Black Holes and Baby Universes and Other Essays (1993))"

I have found that the true quote of Stephen Hawking on free will is in his book "The grand design":

“It is hard to imagine how free will can operate if our behavior is determined by physical law, so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion.” 

Time for me to review many things. As for now I just can say that I intuitively agree with the libertarians' philosophic current...

Edited November 7, 2023 by martillo

[Eise]

@martillo

If it interests you, I once wrote a comment on an article by Hawking on free will:

 

Edited November 7, 2023 by Eise

[studiot]

Is 'free will' not a form of determinism ?

Once we have made our choice and enacted it the result is determined.

Chocolate or Vanilla ?

Once I walk away scoffing my chocolate ice cream the result was determined by my free will.

[Eise]

13 minutes ago, studiot said:

Is 'free will' not a form of determinism ?

Once we have made our choice and enacted it the result is determined.

No. I think you smuggle in another meaning of 'determined'. Like in 'Can you please determine the temperature?', meaning, 'Can you please measure the temperature?'

You could apply the same meaning of 'determined' to a real stochastic process. After a measurement is made, one could say that the value of an observable was determined. But still, the result was not determined, i.e. the result was not fixed by conditions immediately before.

If a process is determined or not does not depend on if it is in the past, present or future. The only thing is that when it is in the past, it will not change anymore.

[studiot]

9 minutes ago, Eise said:

No. I think you smuggle in another meaning of 'determined'. Like in 'Can you please determine the temperature?', meaning, 'Can you please measure the temperature?'

You could apply the same meaning of 'determined' to a real stochastic process. After a measurement is made, one could say that the value of an observable was determined. But still, the result was not determined, i.e. the result was not fixed by conditions immediately before.

If a process is determined or not does not depend on if it is in the past, present or future. The only thing is that when it is in the past, it will not change anymore.

There is more than one meaning to 'determined' ?

[Eise]

PS this ambiguity can be found in at least the other languages I am familiar with:

• Dutch: bepalen, or vaststellen
• German: bestimmen, or feststellen

If somebody know other languages in which this ambiguity exist, please post! Martillo, you mother tongue is Spanish, isn't it? Can you enlighten us?

6 minutes ago, studiot said:

There is more than one meaning to 'determined' ?

Of course!

Wiktionary:

Quote

Verb
determine (third-person singular simple present determines, present participle determining, simple past and past participle determined)

1. To set the boundaries or limits of. 
2. To ascertain definitely; to figure out, find out, or conclude by analyzing, calculating, or investigating. 
3. To fix the form or character of; to shape; to prescribe imperatively; to regulate; to settle. 
4. To fix the course of; to impel and direct; with a remoter object preceded by to.
   The news of his father's illness determined him to depart immediately.
5. To bring to a conclusion, as a question or controversy; to settle authoritative or judicial sentence; to decide.
   The court has determined the cause.
6. To resolve (to do something); to establish a fixed intention; to cause (something) to come to a conclusion or decision; to lead.
   I determined to go home at once.
7. (logic) To define or limit by adding a differentia.
8. (law, otherwise obsolete) To bring to an end; to finish. 

Edited November 7, 2023 by Eise

[studiot]

So with all that latitude we should all be more careful how we use the word in technical discussions.

[iNow]

11 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Without consciousness, there couldn't be free will.

Did you read this on a bumper sticker? It has zero relevance to my point. You kept asking and misunderstanding, so the basics are these:

• Our actions have an impact on the world around us
• Our thoughts and decisions appear to be formed prior to reaching the parts of our minds generally associated with self and awareness and consciousness
• Those decisions and thoughts are all driven by physical and biochemical processes (there is no magic meta physical  super natural spirit or "specialness" to conscious experience... it's just another chemical reaction across our nervous system)
• The evidence further suggests that our sense of consciousness and freedom to choose are themselves just a narrative we create and impose AFTER the decision event already occurred
• We use these illusions to make sense of the world around us much like we use models and maps, but that doesn't mean the map is equivalent to the territory
• This really changes nothing about the way we exist since it's always been this way, even if it understandably feels a bit weird and scary when first encountered

To borrow from Stephen Hawking: "our behavior is determined by physical law, so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion.” 

Some people accept all of those things including the illusion, but state we DO have free will since our entire being is still acting according to those biochemical reactions. I personally find that unsatisfying given my understanding of the concept of freedom. 

To use an analogy, our minds are essentially just mixing vinegar and baking soda to make science fair level volcanoes, but that doesn't actually mean we are causing any real volcanoes to erupt. 

[martillo]

3 hours ago, Eise said:

If somebody know other languages in which this ambiguity exist, please post! Martillo, you mother tongue is Spanish, isn't it? Can you enlighten us?

Yes in Spanish the term "determine" has some different meanings but I think we must focus in the context of our discussion and give an appropriated definition to it.

I'm considering the mathematical concept of determining which is the used one in Physics and software/hardware Computing:

_ The value of a function is determined by the values of its variables.

_ The inputs determines the output. 

 

2 hours ago, studiot said:

So with all that latitude we should all be more careful how we use the word in technical discussions.

Sure.

 

Our problem is now is if at some present state the future can be determined by things of the past only and not by other things in the future.

The thing is then related to if our choices are deterministic or not. If our choices depend on things in the past only then they are determined and the future could be determined. If our choices are not deterministic then the future cannot be determined.

This is in what our discussion is centered in this thread I think.

Seems the problem is about the "elbow room" (or degree of freedom) we can still find in our decisions in that future. If in the future we still have an "elbow room" then we can either play dice, rationalize about the best choice or just intuitively "follow our heart" for us to finally make a choice and decision. In this case there would be some indeterminism in the future choices and so in the future.

Edited November 7, 2023 by martillo

[martillo]

So, the key point is about the "elbow room" in our future choices/decisions.

The "elbow room" in the future...

I believe it could exist sometimes but how to demonstrate that, I don't know.

May be I could think in some example and that would be enough. I must think about...

[martillo]

I thought in an example showing volition with enough "elbow room" proving indeterminism in the future. A sad story.

Uruguayan flight 571 through the "Andes" mountains to Santiago-Chile crashed. Many people survived at the crash in the high mountains although some seriously injured. They had a radio receiver telling a rescue operation was initiated looking for them. After seven days the unsuccessful rescue operation was cancelled. They were considered dead in the mountains. The situation was to decide what to do then. Different people took different options. As time passed some stayed waiting for rescue surviving through cannibalism. Some departed walking through the mountains. Someones refused to eat Human flesh and died. Finally after more than two months the departing ones found help and the ones still surviving at the mountains were rescued.

The case shows a situation with different choices made by different ones with different results well showing the future was undetermined for the passengers at the crash. Their future was undetermined for them at the situation and depended on their decisions and other things like their injuries, avalanches happening, etc. 

I think the sad case is a good example of enough "elbow room" in a situation showing an undetermined future for someones.

I think is clear that the future is not determined and that actually indeterminism takes place.

PS: Books and films have been made on the story.

 

Edited November 7, 2023 by martillo

[AIkonoklazt]

11 hours ago, iNow said:

Did you read this on a bumper sticker? It has zero relevance to my point. You kept asking and misunderstanding, so the basics are these:

• Our actions have an impact on the world around us
• Our thoughts and decisions appear to be formed prior to reaching the parts of our minds generally associated with self and awareness and consciousness
• Those decisions and thoughts are all driven by physical and biochemical processes (there is no magic meta physical  super natural spirit or "specialness" to conscious experience... it's just another chemical reaction across our nervous system)

What do you mean, "our" actions? What is this "our"? It's just a bunch of chemical reactions.

• Chemical reactions within the human body have an impact on the world around the bodies
• There aren't any "decisions" unless you're talking about said chemical reactions
• What do you mean "driven by"? What's driving what? Those are all just chemical reactions
• Rest of the paragraph just extraneous blub

11 hours ago, iNow said:

To use an analogy, our minds are essentially just mixing vinegar and baking soda to make science fair level volcanoes, but that doesn't actually mean we are causing any real volcanoes to erupt. 

Uh, no, just chemical reactions in the bodies.

C'mon, just admit you're pushing epiphenominalism and call it a day.

Oh, and by the way, Eise said this earlier:
 

Quote

But I think it really is not possible to understand free will without taking consciousness into account.

So how about you ask him whether he took that off of a sticker instead?

14 hours ago, Eise said:

@martillo

If it interests you, I once wrote a comment on an article by Hawking on free will:

 

Hawkings really should have stuck to astrophysics. His silly comments about apocalyptic AI really stained his rep.