[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 24 KB, 350x201, DeterminismXFreeWill.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5186258 No.5186258 [Reply] [Original]

Does free will exist?

After studying some neuro-science texts over the past year, it's hard to believe in free will in any sense. Even from a non-scientific standpoint it's tough to find any evidence of it.

>> No.5186281

>neuro
>science

pick one

>> No.5186303

>>5186281
This guy's a sagefag, don't listen to him.

I would say free will exists, just not in the way that you think it does, and you don't have as much of it as you think you do. According to quantum mechanics the universe must not be completely deterministic, and, to me at least, a somewhat indeterministic world necessitates a bit of free will.

>> No.5186315
File: 139 KB, 661x520, spinoza 2 cropped drawing portrait. spinozablogs.nl Altkirch_16_Karl_Bauer_1909.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5186315

>science
>having anything to say about free will

>> No.5188089

;)

>> No.5188110

If anyone is REALLY interested in this question, go read http://lesswrong.com/lw/of/dissolving_the_question/ and http://lesswrong.com/lw/r0/thou_art_physics/ .
>So here's your homework problem: What kind of cognitive algorithm, as felt from the inside, would generate the observed debate about "free will"?
>Your assignment is not to argue about whether people have free will, or not.
>Your assignment is not to argue that free will is compatible with determinism, or not.
>Your assignment is not to argue that the question is ill-posed, or that the concept is self-contradictory, or that it has no testable consequences.
>You are not asked to invent an evolutionary explanation of how people who believed in free will would have reproduced; nor an account of how the concept of free will seems suspiciously congruent with bias X. Such are mere attempts to explain why people believe in "free will", not explain how.
>Your homework assignment is to write a stack trace of the internal algorithms of the human mind as they produce the intuitions that power the whole damn philosophical argument.

>> No.5188129

>>5186258
>>5186303
>>5187926
Samefag.

Shut up about free will already. It's not science.

>> No.5188135

>>5188129
Sure it is. Cognitive science, to be exact.

>> No.5188159

>Problem of philosophy/metaphysics and personal insecurity
>Science

Pick one.

>> No.5188163
File: 37 KB, 670x496, 1274477678194.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5188163

You could only say that this is not science in the sense that we can't adequately measure or test for free will.

The reason for this, though, is merely because our capacity to analyze the brain (in its many dimensions) is limited.

Give computer science (specifically, artificial intelligence engineering) a couple decades and you'll have your answer, OP.

>> No.5188177

Can anyone explain to me what's so complicated about this question? Yes, you determine your actions ("free will"). No, this does not conflict with deterministic physics. What's the problem?

>> No.5188185

>>5188177

What do you mean by "you"?

>> No.5188188

>>5188185
Your physical body, and the brain in particular.

>> No.5188192

>>5188177

Some people think determining your actions means you believe in a soul.

It's a problem of definitions.

>> No.5188199

>implying reality is a single layer
>implying your experience and reality is 1 to 1 perfect

>> No.5188201

>>5188192
How the hell are those related?

>> No.5188204

>>5188201
if "you" dont then who does? that "you" = soul to most people

>> No.5188203

>>5188188

A = ones self, contained by their physical body + brain, is the agent of action and experience
B = body + brain are composed of physical components
C= action, experience, will, etc are deterministic

A U B => C

>> No.5188206
File: 10 KB, 220x286, make_me_laugh_harder.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5188206

>2012
>scientific realism

>not instrumentalism
>not neutral-monism

>> No.5188210

Essentially it comes down to perception. Think of what you're looking at right now, what you're hearing, what you're feeling, etc. You can generalize that to a MANY variable vector. There is some amount of choice in what you are perceiving. If I choose to turn on my stereo, I'm using free will to change the vector so that I would then be perceiving music or whatever happens to be on the stereo. Total free will would mean that you have absolute control over what your perceptions are. For instance, you could 'become' the feeling of the texture of a rock, and a sound louder than anything you have ever experienced to now, or you could will into your visual perception a vast mountain range in Colorado, or wherever. The problem is, what if there are sets of perceptions that destroy that vector? That would be analogous to turning my stereo up so loud I go deaf, or staring at the sun until I go blind, etc, etc. You have some amount of choice over your perception, the feedback between that choice, and that perception is free will. We live in a place where there are vast limits on what choices are available to us, in regards to what we perceive. It takes a lot of time to learn those limits. You can't just immediately have free will, you would destroy yourself.

>> No.5188213

>>5188203
So again, what's the problem?

>> No.5188216

>>5188206
>monism
>not nondual
>2012
Still believe all is one eh?

>> No.5188230

>>5188216
>nondualism
>not the Upanishads' description of neutral-monism

>> No.5188245

>>5188230
>Upanishads

>> No.5188257

>>5188245
-are a collection of philosophical texts which form the theoretical basis for the Hindu religion.
Also called Vedanta.

>> No.5188265

>>5188135
Well, yeah, if you define it as an illusion, but free will as in actual free agency is not a scientific concept.

>> No.5188288

>>5188163
I fucking hate it when people believe this is what I do. AI != free will bullshit. It's math and algorithms to analyze large batches of data, I'd even call it wrongly named. I'll just start calling myself a statistician, it's even more correct.

>> No.5188318

HOW MANY OF THESE POINTLESS UNFALSIFIABLE FUCKING THREADS DO WE NEED GOING ON SIMULTANEOUSLY?

SAGE GOES IN ALL FIELDS.

>> No.5188376

>>5188288
Free will is when the brain analyzes the batches of data and comes up with more than one (this is important) solution to a problem and chooses(also important) the one it's programing determines as the most beneficial, unhindered ( by firmware).

>> No.5188385

>>5188318
We need a philosophy board.
Teenagers and westerners in their early 20's seem to be severely lacking knowledge in the subject.

>> No.5188387

>>5188376
That's not free will, that's a fully deterministic process.

>> No.5188390

>>5188387
It's your brain choosing your actions. If that's not free will, what is?

>> No.5188401

>>5188390
>It's your brain choosing your actions.
Well, no, you only call it choice, but even in your own example this "choice" is merely one point in a deterministic chain of cause & effect:
>and chooses(also important) the one it's programing determines as the most beneficial
There is no free agency in this at all.

>> No.5188407 [DELETED] 

>>5188401
Would you prefer for it to chose the most beneficial solution ?

Some people commit suicide. It happens.

>> No.5188409

>>5188401
>Well, no, you only call it choice, but even in your own example this "choice" is merely one point in a deterministic chain of cause & effect:
That doesn't make it any less of a choice. See http://lesswrong.com/lw/r0/thou_art_physics/ and http://lesswrong.com/lw/rb/possibility_and_couldness/ for the full explanation.

>> No.5188415

>>5188401
Would you prefer for it to chose the most non-beneficial solution ?

Some people commit suicide. It happens.

fucking spellcheck

>> No.5188442

>>5188409
>That doesn't make it any less of a choice.
It makes it the exact opposite of a choice. The outcome is a sum of a variety of influencing factors, not the result of free agency.

>>5188415
>Would you prefer for it to chose the most non-beneficial solution ?
What? What does that have to do with anything? This isn't about my preference, or how things *should* be. It's about how things *are*, and nothing in the example given by the guy I'm talking to is non deterministic.

>Some people commit suicide. It happens.
Yes, and that's a deterministic "choice" as well.

>> No.5188450

>>5188442
>The outcome is a sum of a variety of influencing factors, not the result of free agency.
How do these conflict? Why can't a free agent consist of a sum of a variety of influencing factors?
Did you read those articles, by the way? They explain it better than I ever could.

>> No.5188462

>>5188442
>not the result of free agency.

Wouldn't your version of free agency be pure chaos ?

"I hit my thumb with a hammer, I'll go for a swim."

That's how a 4 year old child would think.

We have free will but we shape our though process with logic and knowledge. We're not limiting our free will, we merely seek a most beneficial outcome.

All the free will in the world won't help you if your finger gets infected from the water and you die.

>> No.5188468

>>5188409
Also, those two links don't really refute what I said. They simply redefine "choice" and "free will", which is fair enough philosophically, but that's not what I'm arguing against here. I'm arguing against actual acausal/contra-causal free agency, and I really hate it when people mislabel a completely deterministic process just so that they can keep saying "Free will exists".

>> No.5188502

>>5188468
>I'm arguing against actual acausal/contra-causal free agency, and I really hate it when people mislabel a completely deterministic process just so that they can keep saying "Free will exists".
You didn't define that earlier (unless I missed something?). Moreover, as the author explains, his definition is the phenomenon that actually underlies human INTUITIONS of "free will"; knowing that, choosing to define the term in any other way is misleading.

>> No.5188506

>>5188450
>How do these conflict?
Well, I don't see how something can be both, independent and dependent at the same time. The moment your "free will" model incorporates external influences and makes the outcome solely dependent on them, you're no longer describing anything close to actual free agency. Even if your idea of the human decision-making process is probabilistic rather than totally deterministic (which is a concept I'm definitely not opposing), you're still not a free agent. I forgot who said it, but there's a quote that perfectly sums up the problem with free will: "A man can do what he wants, but not want what he wants.”

>Why can't a free agent consist of a sum of a variety of influencing factors?
Because if the agent cannot act counter to or independently of those influencing factors, he is not free.

>Did you read those articles, by the way? They explain it better than I ever could.
I did a while ago. The second one is pretty interesting, but as I said, neither of them really refute my point.

>>5188462
>Wouldn't your version of free agency be pure chaos ?
>"I hit my thumb with a hammer, I'll go for a swim."
>That's how a 4 year old child would think.
That's complete nonsense.

>> No.5188518

>>5188502
>You didn't define that earlier
Yeah, that was a mistake. Sorry.

>> No.5188552

>>5188506
>the moment your "free will" model incorporates external influences and makes the outcome solely dependent on them, you're no longer describing anything close to actual free agency.

Why would you need will if there is nothing to use it for.

A blind, deaf, mute, senseless person who can't walk, move, etc. would have no will. He would probably not even have a concept of self.

The human thought process is based around external influences.

Come up with a thought that is not based on an external influence.
protip : You can't.

>> No.5188559

>>5188552
Okay. Thanks for reiterating my point, I guess.

>> No.5188572

>>5188506
>The moment your "free will" model incorporates external influences and makes the outcome solely dependent on them, you're no longer describing anything close to actual free agency.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/rc/the_ultimate_source/ has more to say about that. Personally, I see how this does not make the agent independent of its environment, but I disagree that that ought to be a requirement for the term "free will" - in particular, I think this is NOT a feature of the human intuition once you analyze it a bit.

>> No.5188633 [DELETED] 

>>5188572

>/sci/ence and math board
>Unscientific metaphysics problem about definitions

Seems about right.

>> No.5188640

>/sci/ence and math board
>Unscientific metaphysics problem about definitions

Seems about right.

>> No.5188664

>>5188559
So you have a rhetorical problem with term, is that it ?

I can see where you're coming from but I don't have the time to discuss it now.

>> No.5188693

>>5188572
>Personally, I see how this does not make the agent independent of its environment, but I disagree that that ought to be a requirement for the term "free will" - in particular, I think this is NOT a feature of the human intuition once you analyze it a bit.
See, that's my personal qualm with these discussions. "Free will" is applied to so many different concepts that it's practically meaningless. In discussions, it's become a goalpost that can constantly be moved in any direction. We've reached a point where I don't even disagree with what you're saying (or with the few points I picked up from that last article) *except* for your use of the label "free will", which I think doesn't apply to the processes described.

Maybe we should just put it to rest with the mutual understanding that our decisions are not made in a vacuum, free from external factors, but rather a culmination of influences.

>> No.5188704

>>5188693
Agreed. Let's.

>> No.5188710

>>5188664
>So you have a rhetorical problem with term, is that it ?
It has turned into an issue of semantics, yes, but that wasn't my original impression. I thought actual free agency was up for debate, but it doesn't seem like the guy I'm arguing with and my own idea of human decision-making processes are actually all that different.

>> No.5188750

>>5188552
>You know I feel like going for a walk today.
There you go, a thought not created by external influences

>> No.5188762

>>5188750
>You know, I feel like going for a walk today, because...

>> No.5188779

This is an interesting question but I don't see what stops me going 'I'm going to touch my face' and then touching my face.

>> No.5188789

>>5188779
>5th grade logic

>> No.5188795

>>5188750
>implying you would think to yourself "i am going to go for a walk" if you were kept in a dark basement your entire life with no connection to anything, or if you were a part of a totalitarian state, or if you were an innuit in freezing temperatures, etc.

>> No.5188803

>>5188779
No one's really making an argument against the subjective experience of free will. The point is just that if we were to somehow rewound time over and over again, you'd *always* touch your face, because the conditions and external influences are the same.

>> No.5188807
File: 810 KB, 4005x3298, ;;;D.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5188807

>>5188789
>>5188795
>>5188803

>> No.5188810

>>5188807
Nice rebuttal
I sure don' got trick'd there didn't I

>> No.5188812
File: 43 KB, 669x627, 1333549424568.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5188812

You can't believe in free will without believing in mind/body dualism.

>> No.5188826

>>5188812
Watch me.

>> No.5188827

>>5186315
>thinking this
>21st century

>> No.5188830

>>5188826
nice cognitive disonance there buddy

>> No.5188837

>>5188826
Explain your model.

>> No.5188864

>>5188837
Your brain deterministically (as far as quantum mechanics allows) chooses your actions. As explained in http://lesswrong.com/lw/r0/thou_art_physics/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/rb/possibility_and_couldness/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/rc/the_ultimate_source/ , that's exactly what the "free will" intuition means.

>> No.5188899

>>5188864
They should title that part of the site Free Will Apologetics. It's like reading William Lane Craig except with choice instead of Jesus.

>> No.5188904

>>5188899
Please explain in detail what's wrong with it, then.

>> No.5188913

>>5188904
They bend over backwards and engage in mental gymnastics to defend free will without actually making a case for it. None of those articles describe something that should justifiably be called free. It's all deterministic without exception.

>> No.5188927

>>5188913

Please give an example of an appropriate use of the word "free", then.

Everything in existence is deterministic. If we want the label "freedom" to have any application on existing systems, it must be compatible with determinism.

>> No.5188934

>>5188318
you forgot to write sage in the comment field

>> No.5188944

>>5188913
It doesn't defend it, it EXPLAINS it. It explains what phenomena are behind the human intuitions of free will, and how they do not conflict with determinism.

>> No.5188948

>>5188927
>Everything in existence is deterministic.
You got it.

>Please give an example of an appropriate use of the word "free", then.
Why? I'm not of the opinion that any such thing exists outside the realm of fantasy/dualism and neither are the guys at LessWrong, for that matter. The difference is that they apparently think it's okay to confuse their readers by using the term anyway.

>>5188934
Sorry.

>> No.5188953

>>5188944
No, they conflate the experience of free will, which absolutely no one even claims to be incompatible with determinism, with free will itself, because they are strawmanning dickbags.

>> No.5188969

>>5188953
Eliezer doesn't conflate them, he explicitly defines the latter to be the former because no other definition makes any sense at all.

>> No.5188977

>>5188969

So free will is the sensation of free will?

>> No.5188991

>>5188288

>2012
>Vitalism

>> No.5188993

>>5188969
>he explicitly defines the latter to be the former
Yes, because he couldn't possibly make a case for the latter. It's like a religious apologist who redefines the word "wonder" to include natural phenomena, because supernatural ones are harder to defend.

By the way, I'm not sure why you consider yourself a believer in free will anyway, if even your primary source of information on the topic calls it nonsensical. What you believe in is the subjective experience of free will. A symptom, not a mechanism.

>> No.5189001

>>5188977
It is in apologetics.

>> No.5189003

>>5188948

Your definition of "free" is in error - it does not conform to English language norms, nor to the word "free" as used by the Lesswrong blog.

Please realize that all the statements we are making about freedom and free will are totally unrelated to the concepts you call "freedom" and "free will". What you say is correct for your definitions, and what we say is correct for our definitions.

Then, also please realize that convention is on our side. "Freedom" has always been defined as something which exists, for as long as humans have given it a name. We were first, so you get out and find a different name for your "freedom" which is something which can never exist.

>> No.5189010

>>5188977
>>5188993
Free will is whatever phenomenon happens to underlie the sensation of free will.

>> No.5189067

>>5189003
>Please realize that all the statements we are making about freedom and free will are totally unrelated to the concepts you call "freedom" and "free will".
Bullshit.

>Then, also please realize that convention is on our side.
This isn't me trying to be a dick or anything, but I honestly suggest you dip your toe into the free will debate *outside* of LessWrong. Neither your nor their pet definition of the term is "conventional". Their definition of free will is determinism, plain and simple.

>"Freedom" has always been defined as something which exists, for as long as humans have given it a name. We were first, so you get out and find a different name for your "freedom" which is something which can never exist.
Now you're just losing it. Freedom is an abstract concept with relative meaning depending on the context. In this context, it means free choice as opposed to determined outcome. I'm saying the latter exists and the former doesn't. LessWrong even agrees, albeit backhandedly.

>> No.5189069

>>5189010

Not really. You can put a brain in a jar and stimulate the neurons which correspond with the belief of being free, but this is the opposite of free will.

Free will is a naturally delineable set of a handful of conditions which correspond best to the set of circumstances which humans would call free will.

>> No.5189080

>Free will exists if you define it as something that's neither free nor willed.
I fucking hate you people.

>> No.5189133

>>5189067
> bullshit

Do you have alternative hypotheses?

It seems the natural solution. We disagree about the existence of something because we have different definitions.

The lesswrong posts explain how the deterministic system which compatibilists call free will works. Elizier, as well as I, then decide to use the compatibilist definition, so when you come in and see an argument for free will, you think they're being silly, while it's actually just you being stubborn with sticking with a 'hard deterministic' definition of free will despite clear evidence that that isn't the matter being discussed, and then acting all stuck up when the argument for the existence of compatibilist free will doesn't work for hard deterministic free will.

By the way, with convention I mean the convention between the people, the law, the government, the media, the unions, the corporations, the military and the scientists. Not philosophers and artists.

>> No.5189165

>>5189080

> implying freedom and will have meaning outside of human definitions.

>> No.5189184

>>5189133
>We disagree about the existence of something because we have different definitions.
No, the problem is that we both accept the existence of determinism, but you keep calling it free will for no reason.

I'm not a hard determinist, by the way. However, I do think that most "compatibilist" propositions are just determinism made palatable to people who have an irrational aversion against it.

>Not philosophers and artists.
It's a philosophical problem, though, so maybe you should do some reading on the subject. I mean, I know the LessWrong guy doesn't have a formal education, which might explain why he thinks his deterministic views actually "solve" the free will problem, but that doesn't mean you have to follow his example.

Yes, I only brought up his lack of education to poison the well. Teeheehee.

>> No.5189191

>>5189165
No, that wasn't implied at all.