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

[iNow]

8 hours ago, TheVat said:

All that's left is panpsychism.

I’m not necessarily opposed to that. 
 

6 hours ago, martillo said:

Is impossible to know or determine all the choices all of us will make in the future.

This seems like a data availability problem that could be solved by having access to more of it (more data >> better forecasts) than an actual hard limit imposed by the cosmos (aka: not impossible).

6 hours ago, martillo said:

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.

Why is that a problem?

3 hours ago, martillo said:

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.

Ah. So it’s an opinion wearing a tux and a polka dotted bow tie then?

44 minutes ago, martillo said:

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.

Which conditions are those?

Edited November 4, 2023 by iNow

[martillo]

34 minutes ago, iNow said:

This seems like a data availability problem that could be solved by having access to more of it than an actual hard limit imposed by the cosmos. 

...

Why is that a problem?

The physics' Heisenberg uncertainty principle tell us that some things are impossible to be known with enough precision.

34 minutes ago, iNow said:

Ah. So it’s an opinion wearing a tux and a polka dotted bow tie then?

That is a non logical appreciation like other one you have made: "So, IINM, you’re entire argument here boils down to, “Just trust me, bruh!”.

They are just derogating comments. Don't ask me after why I don't really like to discuss with you.

They are all logical well founded statements. I asked you to answer them with logical argumentation.

Edited November 5, 2023 by martillo

[iNow]

16 minutes ago, martillo said:

I asked you to answer them with logical argumentation.

Fine. Pick one statement you’d like me to address head on. 

[martillo]

9 minutes ago, iNow said:

Fine. Pick one statement you’d like me to address head on. 

It works at the inverse. You must analyze with logic what I have stated and point out what could fail in the statements. After all the aim is to find the right thing, isn't it? If there is something really wrong I will no hesitate in recognize and make a review. I use to do that always. I'm always looking for the truth.

 

Edited November 5, 2023 by martillo

[iNow]

Right. Ok. Never mind 

[AIkonoklazt]

18 hours ago, TheVat said:

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.

Like I've said earlier, infinite regress presumes a mechanistic conception of mind. Are you forwarding the presumption?

Panpsychism isn't the only rabbit hole here. The other is epiphenomenalism.

On 11/2/2023 at 6:16 AM, iNow said:

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. 

 

...unless backward causation is involved https://www.forbes.com/sites/andreamorris/2023/10/23/testing-a-time-jumping-multiverse-killing-consciousness-spawning-theory-of-reality/?sh=592e33f0209b

If we're looking at evidence, then of course that's going to "favor" physicalism because what else would physical evidence point to? Guess what... evidence also point to epiphenomenalism, so we're going to favor that too? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphenomenalism

[dimreepr]

3 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Like I've said earlier, infinite regress presumes a mechanistic conception of mind. Are you forwarding the presumption?

Panpsychism isn't the only rabbit hole here. The other is epiphenomenalism.

...unless backward causation is involved https://www.forbes.com/sites/andreamorris/2023/10/23/testing-a-time-jumping-multiverse-killing-consciousness-spawning-theory-of-reality/?sh=592e33f0209b

If we're looking at evidence, then of course that's going to "favor" physicalism because what else would physical evidence point to? Guess what... evidence also point to epiphenomenalism, so we're going to favor that too? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphenomenalism

This sounds awfully spiritual, ism if you like...

[iNow]

4 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

unless backward causation is involved

Yes, that or leprechauns, of course. 

4 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Guess what... evidence also point to epiphenomenalism

If you’re suggesting that physical and biochemical events are NOT the sole cause of thought and mentation, then I’d be extremely curious to hear what OTHER thing you assert is involved. Maybe you believe we must include unicorn farts, or perhaps tooth fairy dust?

[iNow]

13 hours ago, iNow said:

Yes, that or leprechauns, of course. 

This was too dismissive, but backward causation is a fringe idea lacking evidence, even if we acknowledge the possibility of a biochemical feedback mechanism perhaps amplifying certain decisions after conscious awareness of the thought occurs.

[Eise]

On 11/3/2023 at 3:19 PM, iNow said:

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

Well, you are the one that says that consciousness plays no causal role. That means we could just as well be not-conscious, it would make no difference. 

On 11/3/2023 at 3:19 PM, iNow said:

On 11/3/2023 at 2:40 PM, 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.

Sorry, but again, you are saying that consciousness plays no causal role, so it follows it also plays no role in the big projects humans achieve.

On 11/3/2023 at 3:19 PM, iNow said:

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. 

And where does the question if an action was free or not plays an essential role: in day-to-day experience. You said:

On 10/15/2023 at 3:20 PM, iNow said:

Unless, of course, that’s how we frame the discussion to be useful in specific contexts. 

So this is the context: day-to-day experience. Not some (meta)physical ideas about how free free will arises from the deeper layers of reality. It is the opposite: 'free will' is a higher order phenomenon, and the only context where it plays a role is the context in which also other higher level phenomena exist: persons, actions, wishes, beliefs, ideas, laws and regulations, etc. That's why you see only higher level phenomena in my definition of 'free will': the capability to act according one's own motivations.

Applying the idea of 'free will' on levels where these higher level phenomena do not exist is a category error. It is not so that an electron has no free will: the concept of free will simply does not apply.

On 11/3/2023 at 3:19 PM, iNow said:

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. 

Well, a libertarian free will concept would lead to such a conclusion. All I was saying is that for a naturalist a causal foreplay is not astonishing. So why people think these kind of experiments are 'shocking'? Simply, because they stick to a wrong concept of free will, thinking it must be rooted in physical reality, and therefore must be found on that level.

And for @martillo: I do not see why the capability to act according one's own motivations is in contradiction with determinism.

[Eise]

On 11/4/2023 at 10:57 AM, 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.

Still looking for words? You should look for definitions. 

On 11/4/2023 at 10:57 AM, martillo said:

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

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

Now "the faculty or power of using one's will" comes very close to my definition. So apply this definition on a will that is causally determined. Then still the question makes sense if we can act according our will or not. This question can be asked independently of how this will has arisen.

On 11/4/2023 at 10:57 AM, martillo said:

My answer is: Sometimes. It depends on the conditions which are always present.

And here you go again: "sometimes". What are these conditions?

On 11/4/2023 at 3:21 PM, martillo said:

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

I get that. But in discussions it should be clear for everybody what you mean with those 'names'. 

On 11/4/2023 at 10:57 AM, martillo said:

I disagree with @Eise because I consider volition and determinism mutually exclusive.

Obviously you think 'volition' is more than "the faculty or power of using one's will". 

On 11/4/2023 at 10:57 AM, martillo said:

Determinism implies the future is predetermined, there are no choices for us to make.

Nope. Do not use 'determined' in the same meaning as 'predetermined'. 'Predetermined' means that the future is fixed, and that nothing, not even my actions, can change anything. 'Determined', in a naturalistic understanding, means that everything is caused, but our actions are part of the causal network: they have causal impact. That my actions are caused too does not matter. 

So the key point is that the question if we have free will or not lies in the relationship between my own intentions, and the possibility to act according them. Everything else is either magical thinking, or metaphysical mumbo-jumbo.

On 11/4/2023 at 6:29 PM, martillo said:

The future is not determined and depends on our choices and actions. 

No: the future is determined and depends on our choices and actions. Do you get it (and TheVat too)? Our choices and actions are parts of the causal network. Our choices and acts matter, the future depends on it.

On 11/4/2023 at 6:29 PM, martillo said:

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.

Nope. The world is determined, or it is not. Our possibility to predict the future, even in a determined universe, has nothing to do with it. We in fact know that the future is unpredictable, even when the universe is determined: see chaos theory. Predictability has nothing to do with free will. It has to do with determinism: only in a sufficient determined universe, (scientific) predictions are possible. 

[iNow]

3 hours ago, Eise said:

you are saying that consciousness plays no causal role

I'm saying the decision is made prior to conscious awareness of it, so you continue misrepresenting me.

3 hours ago, Eise said:

That's why you see only higher level phenomena in my definition of 'free will': the capability to act according one's own motivations.

And my challenge has consistently been calling that "free" since it appears to be decided chemically prior to awareness, consciousness, or areas of the mind most often considered "self."

3 hours ago, Eise said:

Well, a libertarian free will concept would lead to such a conclusion.

Thanks for sharing, but I've not aligned myself with any specific camp on this... libertarian, compatiblist, whatever... I'm just laying out the conclusions which follow naturally from the repeated findings of neuroscience. 

3 hours ago, Eise said:

why people think these kind of experiments are 'shocking'? Simply, because they stick to a wrong concept of free will,

The issue, of course, is that's the concept used by the masses and hence the context of most discussions. I understand your definition is more precise and likely even more accurate, but it's not what basically anyone except you is talking about during these exchanges. 

Edited November 6, 2023 by iNow

[Eise]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

I'm saying the decision is made prior to conscious awareness of it, so you continue misrepresenting me.

May I ask it then? Does consciousness play a causal role?

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Eise said:

May I ask it then? Does consciousness play a causal role?

I reckon that depends on how you define consciousness and also how you define causal.

As I've already mentioned, the actions we take of course have causal impact on the world around us. That doesn't change merely because the decision event appears to occur prior to us becoming consciously aware of it. 

Edited November 6, 2023 by iNow

[martillo]

5 hours ago, Eise said:

The world is determined, or it is not.

I realize now that our difference is minimum. In summary: we both agree in the existence of volition and so the existence of some "free will", we agree in causality (every action has a cause) and also agree in that the future depends on our choices and actions. We are only disagreeing in if the future is determined or undetermined. I looked for the definition of indeterminism then. 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.

Edited November 6, 2023 by martillo

[AIkonoklazt]

On 11/5/2023 at 6:33 AM, iNow said:

Yes, that or leprechauns, of course. 

If you’re suggesting that physical and biochemical events are NOT the sole cause of thought and mentation, then I’d be extremely curious to hear what OTHER thing you assert is involved. Maybe you believe we must include unicorn farts, or perhaps tooth fairy dust?

Before continuing with glib remarks, would you confirm that there is such a thing as time symmetry?

No, I'm suggesting that your conceptual scheme can only end in epiphemnomenalism.

5 hours ago, iNow said:

 

As I've already mentioned, the actions we take of course have causal impact on the world around us.

What is this "we"? Oh, you mean bundles of chemistry, is that correct? Then there isn't any of this "we". It's simply one large physical system, there isn't any "we" at all.

It then follows that this "you" isn't involved in anything at all- This "you," is ephipenomenal.

[iNow]

14 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

would you confirm that there is such a thing as time symmetry?

In a thread about free will? Nah. Won’t be commenting on that.  

17 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

there isn't any of this "we". It's sim

Well, sure. It could be that if that’s the chosen frame of reference, but again… in a thread about free will it’s probably safe to say that particular framing isn’t the most useful and doesn’t lead to an improved understanding. 

[AIkonoklazt]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

In a thread about free will? Nah. Won’t be commenting on that. 

Um, is that a handwave?

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Well, sure. It could be that if that’s the chosen frame of reference, but again… in a thread about free will it’s probably safe to say that particular framing isn’t the most useful and doesn’t lead to an improved understanding. 

...that's the framing you're going by.

[iNow]

29 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Um, is that a handwave?

No. It’s a direct statement that I won’t be answering your question about the existence of time symmetry in a thread about free will. 

29 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

that's the framing you're going by.

It is not. I am not suggesting it’s all “simply one large physical system, there isn't any "we" at all.”

This is what’s known in the biz as a strawman. 

[AIkonoklazt]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

No. It’s a direct statement that I won’t be answering your question about the existence of time symmetry in a thread about free will. 

 

You've never given a justification for the exclusion of time symmetry, and since the thread is one where causality is a topic, I'm seeing the refusal as handwaving.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

 

It is not. I am not suggesting it’s all “simply one large physical system, there isn't any "we" at all.”

This is what’s known in the biz as a strawman. 

Then what in the world is it? I've stated before that's the result of your conceptual scheme- Epiphenomenalism.

[iNow]

4 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

You've never given a justification for the exclusion of time symmetry

Yes. This is correct. 

4 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

the thread is one where causality is a topic

It’s not, though. 

[AIkonoklazt]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

Yes. This is correct. 

It’s not, though. 

What is the support for determinism when causality isn't even involved?

[iNow]

I’m not arguing for determinism. That’s a label someone else applied. 

[AIkonoklazt]

Just now, iNow said:

I’m not arguing for determinism. That’s a label someone else applied. 

Okay. Let's start over. What are you advocating, and why doesn't causality factor into it?

[iNow]

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