Something bothering me about free will

Stosis
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-10-21
User is offlineOffline
Something bothering me about free will

So, until now I thought free will was just a leftover from pre-scientific thinking. I mostly thought this because, as we all know, a single cell is a stimulus response machine, therefore many cells put together (ie a human) can also only function as a (much more complex) stimulus response machine. My question is why can't free will simply be an emergent property of many cells working together, the same way something like human intelligence is.

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:My question is why

 

Quote:
My question is why can't free will simply be an emergent property of many cells working together, the same way something like human intelligence is.

I think you're confusing yourself by asking the wrong question.  Could a thing called "free will" be an emergent property?  Sure.  Emergent properties exist, and there could be one that we decided to call "Free Will."  But that's really just stating the obvious.

Rather than go at it from that angle, I think you should ask, "What would free will be if it were an emergent property?"

What I think you'll find is that describing such a property will prove remarkably difficult, if not impossible.  What most of us think of when we conceptualize "Free Will" is second order awareness of our options.  That is, we can think about thinking about our options.  We can analyze how we move from point A to point B and arrive at a decision.  While this is certainly a neat talent, it doesn't really have much to do with any genuine freedom from our subconscious "algorithm."  It's that very algorithm, which happens quite beyond our control, that gives us the ability to analyze our thoughts, and we can neither turn it off and on nor change it.  

So... just for shits and giggles, can you describe what an emergent, "free" ability would look like?

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
I am not following you

I am not following you Hamby. How can one have choices and be aware of them if one is ultimately a slave to some back end algorithm?

 

Surely, the algorithm must exist. If for no other reason than the fact that we have some sort of mental structure that serves as a reference frame to keep us from simply being tabula rasa drooling idiots. However, if choices exist, then there must be some meaning that can be reasonably attached to the concept of free will.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:I am not following

 

Quote:
I am not following you Hamby. How can one have choices and be aware of them if one is ultimately a slave to some back end algorithm?

Have you ever tried asking the question the other way?  How can one have options and be aware of them, and NOT still ultimately be a slave to some kind of back end algorithm?  Awareness is awareness.  It doesn't imply or necessarily lead to freedom from algorithms.  It's just awareness.

Quote:
Surely, the algorithm must exist. If for no other reason than the fact that we have some sort of mental structure that serves as a reference frame to keep us from simply being tabula rasa drooling idiots. However, if choices exist, then there must be some meaning that can be reasonably attached to the concept of free will.

Why?

Quote:
So dude, you used a computer which runs on electricity that may well have come from a nuclear reactor to send your message down wires which were put in place by the phone/cable company so that they could make millions of dollars only to use the internet to tell us that you don't believe in science?

I take it I'm supposed to be insulted?  I've written at great length about free will.  It's in the RRS author's section.  The crux of my argument is not that humans don't make choices, or that second order thought doesn't make our choices different in kind from an ant's choices.  It's that the concept of Free Will is incoherent, and that ultimately, every choice we make boils down to an extremely simple algorithm:  We choose what we believe is the best thing for us to choose.

If you think about that for a second, you realize why the freewill concept is nonsense.  What determines our appraisal of the best choice?  Two things, and two things only:  The totality of our perceptions and the algorithm which we can call our "thought processes."

We have no control over our perceptions.  Our brain reaches decisions before we become aware of the decisions.  (You've read this research, I'm sure.)  So... there's literally no time in which this magical free will could exert itself.  Once we enter a state of belief, we're there, and we can't defy time to go back and change it.

It's really very simple.  We just have this bizarre notion that awareness of awareness somehow frees us from basic neurology.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:I take it

Edit:

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
How can one have choices and be aware of them if one is ultimately a slave to some back end algorithm?

I don't see what's wrong with that. It would only need to create the illusion that you're making "free" choices; you would be aware of having choices, but not the algorithm.

Hambydammit wrote:
I take it I'm supposed to be insulted?

Pst........you quoted his signature. 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Stosis wrote:
So, until now I thought free will was just a leftover from pre-scientific thinking. I mostly thought this because, as we all know, a single cell is a stimulus response machine, therefore many cells put together (ie a human) can also only function as a (much more complex) stimulus response machine. My question is why can't free will simply be an emergent property of many cells working together, the same way something like human intelligence is.

Did you ever notice the whole free will thing is just a lead-in to a religious guilt trip? It is a cheap argument that sounds like deep thought that always leads to a required free choice to do as the sky pilot says.

Free will they say. What other kinds of will are there? Please name them. As there is only one kind what other purpose the redundant "free" kind save to affix guilt for failure to obey the sky pilot?

It isn't really fair to hold all the medicine men guilty as they are no brighter than anyone else. What other group could spend centuries debating free will v predestination knowing full well there is no possible way to test either view?

On the secular side we have the question of whether individuals make a difference or there is a tide in the affairs of men that sweeps to its own shores despite what men can do. It is a question without a moral component. For the Greeks it was a theme of a hero. The question was if a person was strong enough not that he chose to be a hero. Priests can't damn people to hell for not being born with the right stuff. So comes the fantasy everyone can be a hero by obeying the guy with the beanie or the funny collar.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Pst........you

 

Quote:
Pst........you quoted his signature.

Whoops.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: Quote:My

Hambydammit wrote:

 

Quote:
My question is why can't free will simply be an emergent property of many cells working together, the same way something like human intelligence is.

I think you're confusing yourself by asking the wrong question.  Could a thing called "free will" be an emergent property?  Sure.  Emergent properties exist, and there could be one that we decided to call "Free Will."  But that's really just stating the obvious.

Rather than go at it from that angle, I think you should ask, "What would free will be if it were an emergent property?"

What I think you'll find is that describing such a property will prove remarkably difficult, if not impossible.  What most of us think of when we conceptualize "Free Will" is second order awareness of our options.  That is, we can think about thinking about our options.  We can analyze how we move from point A to point B and arrive at a decision.  While this is certainly a neat talent, it doesn't really have much to do with any genuine freedom from our subconscious "algorithm."  It's that very algorithm, which happens quite beyond our control, that gives us the ability to analyze our thoughts, and we can neither turn it off and on nor change it.  

How would you define this subconscious algorithm? Does it have any properties usefull for anything? Any 100% certain parameters we can work with, so that we know that the algorithm can't be changed?

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:How would you define

 

Quote:
How would you define this subconscious algorithm? Does it have any properties usefull for anything? Any 100% certain parameters we can work with, so that we know that the algorithm can't be changed?

It changes constantly.  Every new piece of sensory data changes our brains slightly.  We don't process data the way we did when we were kids, right?  It obviously changes.

The algorithm is useful for defining how we think.  I'd say that's important.  Do you mean can we write out the algorithm?  No.  It's too complex for us to write out at this time.  Doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I would define it simply as the description of the totality of our mind's thought processing mechanism.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

 

Quote:
How would you define this subconscious algorithm? Does it have any properties usefull for anything? Any 100% certain parameters we can work with, so that we know that the algorithm can't be changed?

It changes constantly.  Every new piece of sensory data changes our brains slightly.  We don't process data the way we did when we were kids, right?  It obviously changes.

The algorithm is useful for defining how we think.  I'd say that's important.  Do you mean can we write out the algorithm?  No.  It's too complex for us to write out at this time.  Doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I would define it simply as the description of the totality of our mind's thought processing mechanism.

Could it be that the totality of our mind's thought processing mechanism includes methods for changing the base algorithm, methods which in themselves are not deterministic, like a chaotic system rather than a complex one? A system that makes new base rules and abolishes old ones as it goes?

In essence, could it be that the "algorithm" is that there is no algorithm?

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:In essence, could it

 

Quote:
In essence, could it be that the "algorithm" is that there is no algorithm?

I don't like "Could it be that..." questions.  Of course it could be.  But I don't see any evidence that it's true.  Instead, we have pretty clear pictures of how the human brain works, and basically, it's like a self-updating computer.  Learning itself is reprogramming.  

Think about it... we can pretty much predict what people will do/believe when they learn certain pieces of information.  Most of the time, when we predict wrong, it's because we didn't know a piece of critical information.  If the whole process was chaotic (arbitrary), we shouldn't be able to do so.

This is another reason why the "free will" nonsense is just that.  If there was some free-floating determination mechanism out there that didn't comply with "the best possible option," we should expect humans to behave very erratically.  On the contrary, we are incredibly predictable.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Stosis wrote:So, until now I

Stosis wrote:

So, until now I thought free will was just a leftover from pre-scientific thinking. I mostly thought this because, as we all know, a single cell is a stimulus response machine, therefore many cells put together (ie a human) can also only function as a (much more complex) stimulus response machine. My question is why can't free will simply be an emergent property of many cells working together, the same way something like human intelligence is.

 

You left out, either in error or in brevity, the fact that human bodies operate in such a harmony within themselves and with millions of other humans that a comparison with any other animal quickly becomes invalid, if and when the "right minds" are brought to such a discussion. The human body is also highly resistant to outside invasions, either through choice or nature, and humans are easily the most dangerous and unique organism on the planet....

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Stosis

Kapkao wrote:

Stosis wrote:

So, until now I thought free will was just a leftover from pre-scientific thinking. I mostly thought this because, as we all know, a single cell is a stimulus response machine, therefore many cells put together (ie a human) can also only function as a (much more complex) stimulus response machine. My question is why can't free will simply be an emergent property of many cells working together, the same way something like human intelligence is.

 

You left out, either in error or in brevity, the fact that human bodies operate in such a harmony within themselves and with millions of other humans that a comparison with any other animal quickly becomes invalid

Umm ...ants?  Unless by harmony, you mean, form the perspective of our history, barely holding it together.

Quote:
The human body is also highly resistant to outside invasions, either through choice or nature,
This, I don't understand.  Humans are animals.  Further, we are organisms just like all those on this planet.  There isn't anything particularly special about our ability to 'resist outside invasions' (and I'm not wholly sure what you mean by that if you don't mean infections).  And it is certainly not through choice, unless you choose to live in a sterile bubble for your life ...which would hardly be a good thing,  I think.

Quote:
and humans are easily the most dangerous and unique organism on the planet....
That kind of human-centric thinking is, I think, deeply flawed.  I'm hesitant even to say that we're unique, but dangerous is an overstatement, unless you mean to say that we're dangerous to ourselves.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Quote:and humans are

 

Quote:
Quote:
and humans are easily the most dangerous and unique organism on the planet....

That kind of human-centric thinking is, I think, deeply flawed.  I'm hesitant even to say that we're unique, but dangerous is an overstatement, unless you mean to say that we're dangerous to ourselves.

Every organism on the planet is unique.  (Well, I guess you could make a case for identical twins being genetically non-unique.)  But yeah, the "uniqueness" of humans is often part of very human-centric thinking.  Sharks are also extraordinarily dangerous and unique.  There aren't many more efficient killers alive, and frankly, all they do is eat and reproduce.

And what about viruses?  They have one and only one purpose -- to reproduce -- and they do it by fucking up their hosts.  Humans at least do nice things for other animals.  I fed my cat and petted him for a while just this very morning.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ZuS wrote:Hambydammit

ZuS wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:

 

Quote:
How would you define this subconscious algorithm? Does it have any properties usefull for anything? Any 100% certain parameters we can work with, so that we know that the algorithm can't be changed?

It changes constantly.  Every new piece of sensory data changes our brains slightly.  We don't process data the way we did when we were kids, right?  It obviously changes.

The algorithm is useful for defining how we think.  I'd say that's important.  Do you mean can we write out the algorithm?  No.  It's too complex for us to write out at this time.  Doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I would define it simply as the description of the totality of our mind's thought processing mechanism.

Could it be that the totality of our mind's thought processing mechanism includes methods for changing the base algorithm, methods which in themselves are not deterministic, like a chaotic system rather than a complex one? A system that makes new base rules and abolishes old ones as it goes?

In essence, could it be that the "algorithm" is that there is no algorithm?

All processes are, in general, a mix of the deterministic and the chaotic/random/stochastic. As the number of 'deterministic' influences on an outcome, such as a 'free' decision, increase, and it becomes harder and harder to distinguish individual 'causes', it approximates a random/chaotic process ever more closely and becomes essentially unpredictable.

A decision is either, at one extreme, essentially a 'coin-flip', or, at the other, it is based on a rational weighing of various factors, influenced by emotions, drives and urges. IOW, a mix of deterministic and 'random'.

Self-modifying algorithms can easily become chaotic.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Self-modifying

 

Quote:
Self-modifying algorithms can easily become chaotic.

True, but the question I think he was asking is whether or not human decision making could be chaotic, and essentially "coin flips."

I don't see any evidence of that.  Granted, there's a lot we still don't know about how brains work, but the outcomes we see give every indication of resulting from non-chaotic processes.  

There's also an issue of definition and language.  I think I wrote earlier that the human decision making algorithm could be summed up simply as "I believe I ought to do what I believe is best."

Having never heard a convincing argument against that simple formula, I can go on to extrapolate the following:  Even if there are non-deterministic elements to human decision making, if the final decision can be viewed as "that which seems like the best choice," then we're no closer to finding genuinely free will.  Our "mental circuitry" processes data before we are conscious of it happening.  By the time we have a thought, the thought has already been formed.  It exists in time.  We can no longer change the existence of that thought than we can reverse time.  Furthermore, while we are experiencing that thought, the unconscious machinery in our heads is churning out our next thought -- of which we are currently unaware.

In other words, what feels like a "real time" experience to us is really a little bit like the delay on a HD television broadcast.  It's all coming to our conscious brain slightly after it happens at the source.

Then there's the question of whether or not we can consciously alter the subconscious process, but this is a red herring.  If we have decided that we want to change the subconscious process, our brain decided that before we became aware of the decision and we are just as helpless to alter our belief about that than if we didn't want to alter the process.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
I think Kapkao meant that

I think Kapkao meant that humans, as a species, are dangerous. As in, because of our technology and population, we have the capacity to inflict incredible damage on ourselves and our planet. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

 

Quote:
Self-modifying algorithms can easily become chaotic.

True, but the question I think he was asking is whether or not human decision making could be chaotic, and essentially "coin flips."

I don't see any evidence of that.  Granted, there's a lot we still don't know about how brains work, but the outcomes we see give every indication of resulting from non-chaotic processes.

There's also an issue of definition and language.  I think I wrote earlier that the human decision making algorithm could be summed up simply as "I believe I ought to do what I believe is best."

Having never heard a convincing argument against that simple formula, I can go on to extrapolate the following:  Even if there are non-deterministic elements to human decision making, if the final decision can be viewed as "that which seems like the best choice," then we're no closer to finding genuinely free will.  Our "mental circuitry" processes data before we are conscious of it happening.  By the time we have a thought, the thought has already been formed.  It exists in time.  We can no longer change the existence of that thought than we can reverse time.  Furthermore, while we are experiencing that thought, the unconscious machinery in our heads is churning out our next thought -- of which we are currently unaware.

In other words, what feels like a "real time" experience to us is really a little bit like the delay on a HD television broadcast.  It's all coming to our conscious brain slightly after it happens at the source.

Exactly the same argument can be applied to the perception of deterministic nature of our decision making - its just a perception. Of course, for you to even consider it as such, I must present you with an example that makes non-deterministic decision making likely, otherwise you will just give me a it's-turtles-all-the-way-down type of answer. Apart from it being a possibility introduced by Niels Bohr, I will try to think of an example. It will not arrive today, I'm afraid.

Hambydammit wrote:

Then there's the question of whether or not we can consciously alter the subconscious process, but this is a red herring.  If we have decided that we want to change the subconscious process, our brain decided that before we became aware of the decision and we are just as helpless to alter our belief about that than if we didn't want to alter the process.

That is all well and good, but a process that decides to change itself might not be a) in charge of the change b) ever able to reverse the change, effectively removing all semblance to an algorithm or anything constant, save a single attribute: its changeable.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ZuS wrote:Hambydammit

ZuS wrote:

[Exactly the same argument can be applied to the perception of deterministic nature of our decision making - its just a perception. Of course, for you to even consider it as such, I must present you with an example that makes non-deterministic decision making likely, otherwise you will just give me a it's-turtles-all-the-way-down type of answer. Apart from it being a possibility introduced by Niels Bohr, I will try to think of an example. It will not arrive today, I'm afraid.

Hambydammit wrote:

Then there's the question of whether or not we can consciously alter the subconscious process, but this is a red herring.  If we have decided that we want to change the subconscious process, our brain decided that before we became aware of the decision and we are just as helpless to alter our belief about that than if we didn't want to alter the process.

That is all well and good, but a process that decides to change itself might not be a) in charge of the change b) ever able to reverse the change, effectively removing all semblance to an algorithm or anything constant, save a single attribute: its changeable.

The 'deterministic nature of our decision making' is NOT derived by internal individual introspection, altho, that can provide support for the idea, if the individual is sufficiently able to examine their own though processes, so it is NOT a 'perception'.

It is the conclusion of a solid line of argument based on much observation and experiment.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:The

BobSpence1 wrote:

The 'deterministic nature of our decision making' is NOT derived by internal individual introspection, altho, that can provide support for the idea, if the individual is sufficiently able to examine their own though processes, so it is NOT a 'perception'.

It is the conclusion of a solid line of argument based on much observation and experiment.

There is no line of experimentation that has as yet invalidated Bohr model derived from quantum mechanics. In the case it is correct, our decision making depends on a mess of locally decided states of particles at the moment of measurement, to the extent that decision making is a physical phenomena the way we understand it. This can not be even talked about as being deterministic or not - it is just nuts.

The line of argumentation you talk about is not at all independent of perception. We happen to see the side the dice usually land on, like the normal distribution of the sum of two 6-sided dice. We conclude the algorithm deals with the number 7 a lot, all the while nothing in the physical system of the two dice has number 7 actually written on it and determinism is only theoretical. We can not think outside the frame, so accepting non-determinism is about as likely as accepting that universe is finite.

Like I said in the part you quoted from a previous post: to offset the turtles-all-the-way-down line of thought in a firm believer, I will have to come up with or find a positively briliant example. I can't do it today (or possibly ever), so I will have to leave it open for the moment.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
OK Zus, I am not sure where

OK Zus, I am not sure where you are going with the Bohr model. Perhaps you meant to refer to the Copenhagen interpretation? At least that would be more in keeping with your idea of invoking some level of chaos.

 

If so, then you are way farther off from Hamby than I am. Sure, I doubt that anyone would suggest that quantum effects do not exist. However, the problem is one of scale. Put simply, quantum effects are not relevant to our everyday experiences. It would, perhaps be better to consider how such effects should be treated at any specific scale.

 

For example, consider a single molecule of caffeine. C8,H10,N4,O2 to be specific. I would not be very much surprised if quantum effects played a fairly large role in determining the odds of such a small molecule being squeezed off of a synapse. However, the role of quantum effects past the level of single molecules is going to have to be treated statistically.

 

I am not going to bother with the math on that one but a reasonable comparison could be made with a truck full of honey bees. When the truck comes to an intersection, do the random motion of the bees play a significant role in whether the truck crosses through the intersection? Or would much larger effects, such as the state of the traffic light play a more significant role?

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

OK Zus, I am not sure where you are going with the Bohr model. Perhaps you meant to refer to the Copenhagen interpretation? At least that would be more in keeping with your idea of invoking some level of chaos.

 

Yup, Copenhagen interpretation, sry for speedtyping.

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

I am not going to bother with the math on that one but a reasonable comparison could be made with a truck full of honey bees. When the truck comes to an intersection, do the random motion of the bees play a significant role in whether the truck crosses through the intersection? Or would much larger effects, such as the state of the traffic light play a more significant role?

 

Now, if we were discussing whether I can go through a wall or not, this point would be valid. However, we are discussing the fundamentals of freedom of thought/decision, which means that we are discussing the fundamentals, not statistics.

Seen in this light, your objection has a practical hue. Practically the perceptual determinism of decision making is important, judging by the statements and accomplishments of Goebbels and his contemporary imitators. In this light it is especially important for us to keep an open door for a potential freedom of thought/decision and continuously ask quastions that challenge our science. I say science and not understanding, because today science is not always a challenge to our understanding, but also a not-always-justified and often a directly damaging and limiting factor to it. We need "better science", as it were. If you want to discuss this, please not here. I am just explainging the way I see things, which will be interesting for the conclusion of this post.

But back to fundamentals. Statistically decision making looks deterministic to us, since it is not separate from other physical phenomena, which incidentally also look deterministic to us. This can mean two things: either we lack understanding of certain things, or reality really is deterministic. Can you imagine how a physical phenomena would look like if it looked non-deterministic? Can you imagine what's beyond the finite universe, effectively imagine nothing? The opposite is just as eazy: can you imagine an infinite universe? I think someone in a post above actually mentioned not being able to define this "freedom" thing; think it was the humpty dumpty guy.

This makes a pretty good case for our lack of understanding and says nothing about the determinism of things. How come? Well, there are no more options for universe, right? We cannot accept it infinite or limited, but it still exists.

So, how does this relate to determinism? Well, it's basically the same dilemma - either everything is deterministic and we have an infinite recursion of causes, or it's not and we lack understanding of things Copenhagen interpretation or the theory of complexity touch on. Something is "wrong" with us when we come to fundamentals, at least for the moment.

Which side of the discussion you fall on usually depends on your instinct and interest, rather than being conclusively convinced by "facts". Most people on this forum have an instinct to contradict holy scripture at every turn. I have the instinct that I explained in the second paragraph of this post. Naturally, we all see our own instinct as the most important one.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 I admit I've only glanced

 I admit I've only glanced at the last five comments.  Once I saw Copenhagen interpretation and determinism popping up, my eyes kind of glazed over.

Does anyone else see that the model of human cognition I'm espousing doesn't have anything to do with determinism?

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: I admit

Hambydammit wrote:

 I admit I've only glanced at the last five comments.  Once I saw Copenhagen interpretation and determinism popping up, my eyes kind of glazed over.

Does anyone else see that the model of human cognition I'm espousing doesn't have anything to do with determinism?

I've been arguing that for the past few days on Atheist Nexus on two threads. Pretty happy with how it's going, despite the guy doing the "I think I understand, makes sense, but I still don't quite get it, shit I'm back where I started" dance. I've clarified several thoughts I've been working on for a while, and tied several different threads together:

http://www.atheistnexus.org/forum/topics/imagination-dreams-illusions

http://www.atheistnexus.org/forum/topics/if-you-see-a-difference-then

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:...Rather

Hambydammit wrote:

...

Rather than go at it from that angle, I think you should ask, "What would free will be if it were an emergent property?"

What I think you'll find is that describing such a property will prove remarkably difficult, if not impossible.  What most of us think of when we conceptualize "Free Will" is second order awareness of our options.  That is, we can think about thinking about our options.  We can analyze how we move from point A to point B and arrive at a decision.  While this is certainly a neat talent, it doesn't really have much to do with any genuine freedom from our subconscious "algorithm."  It's that very algorithm, which happens quite beyond our control, that gives us the ability to analyze our thoughts, and we can neither turn it off and on nor change it.  

So... just for shits and giggles, can you describe what an emergent, "free" ability would look like?

Isn't this an invitation to do the impossible, implicitly suggesting that the emergent property "free" is void? Isn't that a common sense argument against existence of freedom and for a deterministic underlaying algorithm?

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.