Free will

[sciwiz12]

I wanted to think about free will a little bit, firstly discussing decision making in terms of predetermination and true randomness, and secondly discussing consciousness simulation and will.

 

For any given decision based on a set of choices, the selection is either determined by the input or it is random such that the same inputs will give unpredictable outputs. If a decision is predetermined then I can only freely choose the outcome if I can freely choose the input. Even recursive decision making still would utilise inputs based on initial conditions.

 

Likewise if outputs are random or even based on truly random initial conditions then I am still the slave to chance.

 

Thus if I make a decision, whether that decision is made based directly on input or based even partially on chance the choice cannot truly be free for me to make.

 

 

That said a possible free will can be derived in a sense. Imagine the concept of the self as a class in object oriented programming, a collection of information coupled with a set of instructions which the brain can utilise to simulate the self and to make decisions according to the concept of the self. All may still be calculated deterministically but there is a sense of free will if we imagine the brain attempting to simulate free will according to a conception of the self using pseudo-randomness to make certain calculations in order to make approximately random decisions from a range of suitable options partially based on stored information pertaining to will and preference.

 

Another question occurs to me, however. Even in the above model does this concept of a man have free will? Rather, is he the author of his will? If only factors outside of himself determine his will then he is not the author of his will, and if he wills that his will should change then it merely shifts the question. His initial will must be predetermined by external factors, and every subsequent alteration to will is made from the initial will. That said one could conceivably construct a more intelligently designed will by taking information learned through experience and desires from the initial will to design and construct a new will to then undergo transition from old will to new will, yet even so the new will is determined from the old will determined from initial conditions, possibly with elements of true randomness, but certainly not authored by one's own self.

 

Now I'm not so bold as to claim that this is objectively how we as humans work, simply attempting to construct a model which if similar to humans could partially explain the experience of free will, an ability to, from preconditions and with knowledge, construct a new will from an older will resulting in the perception that one's choices are one's own.

 

Can a man then be held responsible for his actions, in the model I've concocted above in a way he cannot, as he could not control preconditions nor the results of chance. In another sense, however, he could obtain knowledge along with the pre-existing will and create a new will such that it conforms more closely with what knowledge tells him he should want. The more this process would occur the further removed the man would be from his initial conditions and the more like a free man he could become, by constantly updating his will he is never truly free from external control but he evolves into himself, blurring the lines at least between fate and freedom.

 

Of course, that may not in any way reflect how we operate, and my reasoning may be in some way faulty, but it at least provides a model for consideration, assuming it isn't stupid.

[iNow]

Free will almost certainly doesn't exist. Most decisions have been made before we even see any activation in our conscious awareness centers. While the philosophical questions on this topic remain wide open and in dispute, the neurobiological ones are rapidly being closed and converging upon consistent conclusions.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

[Strange]

Free will almost certainly doesn't exist. Most decisions have been made before we even see any activation in our conscious awareness centers.

 

That doesn't mean the decision wasn't made freely.

[Bill Angel]

Imagine the concept of the self as a class in object oriented programming, a collection of information coupled with a set of instructions which the brain can utilise to simulate the self and to make decisions according to the concept of the self. All may still be calculated deterministically but there is a sense of free will if we imagine the brain attempting to simulate free will according to a conception of the self using pseudo-randomness to make certain calculations in order to make approximately random decisions from a range of suitable options partially based on stored information pertaining to will and preference.

 

Here is the title and introduction to a book that covers topics related to the issues that you raised in terms of a different type of computational approach:

 

Neural Cell Behavior and Fuzzy Logic: The Being of Neural Cells and Mathematics of Feeling

 

"This book covers at an advanced level the most fundamental ideas, concepts and methods in the field of applications of fuzzy logic to the study of neural cell behavior. Motivation and awareness are examined from a physiological and biochemical perspective illustrating fuzzy mechanisms of complex systems."

[iNow]

That doesn't mean the decision wasn't made freely.

I believe you may be conflating two different versions of the word free. In discussions of free will, we're generally referencing conscious choice, and that is the target of my response. Did you actually make a decision, or did you merely become aware of one that was already unconsciously made and then try to rationalize it after the fact once it finally hit your prefrontal cortex?

[sciwiz12]

I've heard of fuzzy logic and have seen an example discussed in terms of maglev train rails in Japan. I haven't delved into the math yet because I didn't pay a lot of attention in math and I have to review a lot of subjects. I'm assuming it borrows from modular arithmetic, probability, and possibly combinatorics in order to generate pseudo-random values in order to make certain calculations for the decision making process? Something along those lines? I vaguely remember some discrete math, but maybe I should just shut up and read the book, and thanks for the recommendation.

[CharonY]

I believe you may be conflating two different versions of the word free. In discussions of free will, we're generally referencing conscious choice, and that is the target of my response. Did you actually make a decision, or did you merely become aware of one that was already unconsciously made and then try to rationalize it after the fact once it finally hit your prefrontal cortex?

 

This is what a lot of neuroscience is converging on. That being said, it is not the same to ask whether our behavior is deterministic, as some may think. Given sufficient complexity in a system, the outcome of deterministic and non-deterministic systems may well be indistinguishable.

[Strange]

I believe you may be conflating two different versions of the word free.

 

That is always the problem in such discussions.

 

In discussions of free will, we're generally referencing conscious choice, and that is the target of my response. Did you actually make a decision, or did you merely become aware of one that was already unconsciously made and then try to rationalize it after the fact once it finally hit your prefrontal cortex?

 

If "you" didn't make the decision, then who did?

[iNow]

Chemistry? Tough question to which I don't have a ready and immediate answer.

[Thorham]

If "you" didn't make the decision, then who did?

If we're automatons, then do decisions even exist?

[iNow]

Decisions are still made. Very little changes overall if we accept these facts as relevant. We're simply discussing the possible removal of the illusion that it was our conscious minds that led to those decisions.

[hoola]

I think we have free will, but within limits. That upper limit is established by the available substructure of the universe which the "operator" exists within. In our universe (given of a mathematical construct), the logical (durable) component of the "Mathematic bulk" codes for physical matter/energy, and the illogical ( transient) components can be accessed by the operator's brain (the observer), and the higher the awareness, more degrees of freedom in the approximate mimicry of the real world (perception) is possible as the limit reach is explored by compounding these transients into an internal roadmap.....given this, it seems awareness allows the illogical component to transitionally manifest (abstract thought) within logic (brain), then perturb the local environment via physical activity, and may determine the fermi paradox. . That is to say there is a primary downside (besides the obvious ones) to all this fancy thinking stuff as sentience approaches the free will limit. This would form a sort of "awareness entropy" as the sentient beings increasingly mistake the illogical data stream as a logical one (as the mimicry becomes closer to the perceived model, and therefore more powerful, with small errors amplified into big ones) and past a certain level, those errors will extinguish that sentient being, or community from the universe, or perhaps merely limit their perception at a point determined by biology rather than the limit established by the M-bulk. Since we are still in transition to that "bulk limit", we are of limited interest to any sentience that has made that leap past these amplified sentient perception errors, and are perhaps being carefully observed, if indeed it is possible for sentience anywhere having made that leap and avoid the awareness entropy curve within the arrangements given of this particular universe...

Edited November 22, 2015 by hoola

[Strange]

Chemistry? Tough question to which I don't have a ready and immediate answer.

 

But the answer is the same whether you made the decision "consciously" or not. Same brain. Same biochemical processes. Same person.

If we're automatons, then do decisions even exist?

 

Are we automatons?

[Thorham]

Are we automatons?

I hope not.

Edited November 23, 2015 by Thorham

[Gees]

 

But the answer is the same whether you made the decision "consciously" or not. Same brain. Same biochemical processes. Same person.

 

Agreed. If we make the decision consciously, or if we make the decision unconsciously, we are still making the decision. The question is: Which is the 'self'? Is it our unconscious mind or our conscious mind, or is it both?

 

Many people think that their 'self' is the conscious mind. I am not so sure about that.

 

Gee

[sciwiz12]

I prefer to think of the self as a collection of information that the brain has on the person we think ourselves to be, like a container of self knowledge in a fashion similar to a struct or class in some object oriented programming languages.

 

I can imagine the brain accessing the regions storing the data on the self in order to make decisions.

 

I would contrast this with the experience of being the observer which I would think is more closely tied in with some orientation process. You think of your sense of seeing through your eyes because that's how your brain recognises what is being seen as occurring in front of your face and possibly having consequences for your body, thus orienting oneself to the world.

 

Anyway it's only a suggested model based on pure conjecture born of my limited work with computers, but that would make sense to me, a storehouse of self knowledge and a filter for sensations which overlap to create an illusion of self, a constructed idea of me combined with an experience of the world and my physical place in it.

[Strange]

Many people think that their 'self' is the conscious mind. I am not so sure about that.

 

I agree. It isn't clear that there is a hard distinction between the "conscious" mind and the rest of the brain. And if only the conscious mind were "you", who runs the rest of it?

[iNow]

It isn't clear that there is a hard distinction between the "conscious" mind and the rest of the brain. And if only the conscious mind were "you", who runs the rest of it?

Gut bacteria: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022395615000655

.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/06/gut-bacteria-on-the-brain/395918/

Most researchers agree that microbes probably influence the brain via multiple mechanisms. Scientists have found that gut bacteria produce neurotransmitters such as serotonin, dopamine and GABA, all of which play a key role in mood (many antidepressants increase levels of these same compounds). Certain organisms also affect how people metabolize these compounds, effectively regulating the amount that circulates in the blood and brain. Gut bacteria may also generate other neuroactive chemicals, including one called butyrate, that have been linked to reduced anxiety and depression. Cryan and others have also shown that some microbes can activate the vagus nerve, the main line of communication between the gut and the brain. In addition, the microbiome is intertwined with the immune system, which itself influences mood and behavior.

Note: Multiple additional citations available within the quoted text.

[Bill Angel]

 

I agree. It isn't clear that there is a hard distinction between the "conscious" mind and the rest of the brain. And if only the conscious mind were "you", who runs the rest of it?

Riding a bicycle involves coordination between one's sense of balance and the movements of one's body to keep the bike from toppling over. One has to be conscious to ride a bicycle (one cannot do it in one's sleep) but listening to and understanding an explanation of how to ride a bicycle is not sufficient in itself for mastering the technique.

[Strange]

Gut bacteria: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022395615000655

.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/06/gut-bacteria-on-the-brain/395918/

Note: Multiple additional citations available within the quoted text.

 

Interesting. This seems a bit like the way the Toxoplasma gondii parasite can affect behaviour. This suggests (reinforces) that out thoughts, behaviour, personality and sense of self is due to more than just the "conscious" part of our brain, and more than just our brain. Our entire physiology including sense receptors, and the endocrine system, and symbiotic flora & fauna, and pathologies all contribute to our mental process, memories, personalities and our sense of being individual consciousnesses.

[iNow]

Interesting. This seems a bit like the way the Toxoplasma gondii parasite can affect behaviour. This suggests (reinforces) that out thoughts, behaviour, personality and sense of self is due to more than just the "conscious" part of our brain, and more than just our brain. Our entire physiology including sense receptors, and the endocrine system, and symbiotic flora & fauna, and pathologies all contribute to our mental process, memories, personalities and our sense of being individual consciousnesses.

Indeed. We don't yet seem to know just how far the rabbit hole goes, but it truly is fascinating to explore and continue to illuminate.

Edited November 23, 2015 by iNow

[Gees]

Gut bacteria: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022395615000655

.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/06/gut-bacteria-on-the-brain/395918/

Note: Multiple additional citations available within the quoted text.

 

So . . . a few hundred years ago, when religion ruled, the sentence: "The Devil made me do it." was believed as being quite possibly true.

 

Now that science rules, it seems that "Bacteria made me do it." is the new cause of misbehavior.

 

Either way, it is not my fault. (chuckle chuckle)

 

Gee

[iNow]

Regardless if your consciousness, your neurobiology/neurochemistry, your gut bacteria, or something else is making the decisions and driving your actions, we are still a society wherein those actions might be problematic for other people and we as a society generally try to solve problems (by locking you up or sending you for treatment, for example).

 

If you are making other peoples lives more difficult, the underlying reason is irrelevant. The ideas of fault and responsibility are essentially meaningless red herrings no matter what we do / do not accept about our minds being subject to the same rules of physics as every other entity in the universe.

 

Again, very little changes overall if we accept these facts and little more happens than we potentially remove the likely illusion that it was our conscious minds leading to these behaviors or acts which society for various reasons deems unacceptable.

[Gees]

iNow;

 

Please consider:

 

Regardless if your consciousness, your neurobiology/neurochemistry, your gut bacteria, or something else is making the decisions and driving your actions, we are still a society wherein those actions might be problematic for other people and we as a society generally try to solve problems (by locking you up or sending you for treatment, for example).

If you are making other peoples lives more difficult, the underlying reason is irrelevant. The ideas of fault and responsibility are essentially meaningless red herrings no matter what we do / do not accept about our minds being subject to the same rules of physics as every other entity in the universe.

 

If you are making other people's lives better, is the underlying reason also irrelevant? Are the ideas of accomplishment, success, pride, self-worth, integrity, and striving for goals also meaningless red herrings?

 

If bacteria causes bad behavior, then it is also responsible for good behavior. It can not be one way and not the other way, so what you are saying is that we do not deserve credit for our accomplishments -- something that few people would accept.

 

Again, very little changes overall if we accept these facts and little more happens than we potentially remove the likely illusion that it was our conscious minds leading to these behaviors or acts which society for various reasons deems unacceptable.

 

So rights and responsibilities are both illusions? We can take the medals from our war heroes and give them instead to their bacteria, and remove the bad bacteria from people instead of jailing them.

 

Logic dictates that we acknowledge the good and the bad of behavior with equal understanding, just as it dictates that rights and responsibilities are two sides of the same coin. I can not accept your explanation because there is no logic in it.

 

Gee

Edited November 23, 2015 by Gees

[sciwiz12]

And if so many processes all play a role in one's mental state that would suggest to me that consciousnesses is not a specific process but may very well be an emergent one. The emotional feedback, the senses with the seemingly irrelevant filtered out, etc... Such that focused attention on various nearly simultaneous or fully simultaneous processes creates an illusion of unified consciousness distinct from the filtered background noise.