Free will as time travel

[Ozymandyus]

I have been playing with a conception of free will as a sort of mental time travel: In making choices what we are doing is weighing future consequences. That weighing requires a kind of future modeling in which we mentally place ourselves in possible futures and then choose between those modeled futures and go back in time to act in the present to make one of them come to pass.

Now, granted, our ability to model the future is not perfect, but it is one way to look at free will which gives us a certain degree of personal control - by making a choice we are in essence travelling back in time from our possible futures and choosing which comes to pass. When we struggle with a difficult decision our future selves are battling for their survival!

I admit, it's more of a romantic notion than anything else, but it has given me some enjoyment to contemplate so I thought I would post it here.

 

[PAB]

But , i would have thought that the free will to choose something is often 'in the moment' relating to specific issues and situations in existence as we experience them at the time? Unless we are constantly thinking about the future consequences of our actions and the hypothetical results of that action.

'future modelling' would really be actions somewhat modelled and influenced by ideologies and based on knowledge/previous experience which would concern the past. in terms of free will and ideology , you have no pure autonomy, so your free will is based on a paradigmatic form. so the imagination of the future would be a combination of the synthesis of ideology (desire), and the abstract knowledge of possibilities

 

[Demojen]

That's not free will though.
What is free will?

It is a concept made up by us to give our choices some superior meaning beyond getting from point A to point B.
There are so many contributing factors to a choice, calling the outcome free will is like calling a mathematic equation free will.

The choice is always dependant on contributing factors.

 

[Deleted member 619]

It's no more of a romantic notion than free will itself. It's a myth. An illusion. In reality, there are factors affecting every decision that we aren't even aware of. We may have will, but it certainly isn't free. Have a shufty at the concept of 'priming', which pretty much nails free will to the wall.



Of course, as soon as you attempt to throw an omniscient deity into the mix, even the concept of will is refuted, as you simply don't have any choices.

 

[Unwardil]

Well, no, it doesn't eliminate free will, it just demonstrates that there are a lot more factors which go into determining someone's thought process than what we're aware of on an immediately conscious level.

But we already knew that.

The biggest factor in sexual attraction for instance is smell, but it isn't a scent most people can consciously identify. Does this mean that all men are slaves to their impulses and must immediately screw the best smelling women who pass us on the street? No. We'd like to maybe, but we quite demonstrably do not act this way.

A lot is made of the fact that we actually react to stimuli before our conscious mind is aware of it, but of course we would. If the consciousness was the computer monitor of the brain, then it's obviously going to be the last thing to be informed because the brain has got to have made it's decision before the image can be formed in our mind, otherwise how do we conceptualize that image? It doesn't mean we didn't make that decision. It does mean that we make split second decisions subconsciously, but it doesn't mean we can't consciously train ourselves to make split second decisions in a certain way.

If you've ever learned a musical instrument or a sport or even just learned to read, this is what you're doing. You're training your mind to react to certain stimuli in a certain way and how is that not an act of free will? If I know that my perception is going to be tainted by the heat in a room or by anything, then I can make a conscious effort to change my behavior accordingly and how is that not an act of free will?

Neat video all the same of course, but I'd be very interested to know if that hot and cold thing is universally true or if it's culturally influenced or what have you.

 

[Andiferous]

I have been playing with a conception of free will as a sort of mental time travel: In making choices what we are doing is weighing future consequences. That weighing requires a kind of future modeling in which we mentally place ourselves in possible futures and then choose between those modeled futures and go back in time to act in the present to make one of them come to pass.

Now, granted, our ability to model the future is not perfect, but it is one way to look at free will which gives us a certain degree of personal control - by making a choice we are in essence travelling back in time from our possible futures and choosing which comes to pass. When we struggle with a difficult decision our future selves are battling for their survival!

I admit, it's more of a romantic notion than anything else, but it has given me some enjoyment to contemplate so I thought I would post it here.

I think this is a neat idea...

Some of this debate came up here and Aught brought up the idea of Laplace's Demon (which is, I think, relevant). It's the idea that if someone were able to calculate every cause and map every effect, we could know and predict future events, which, I think, is similar to this idea.

Hackenslash, again I've got to disagree about the idea that freewill has been disproven in any way.

 

[Deleted member 619]

You can disagree all you like. The simple fact is that if our choices are constrained in any way, our will isn't free. As the principle of priming demonstrates nicely, our choices are constrained by factors we aren't even aware of. Now, it may be that with better understanding we can generate freedom of choice for ourselves, but it doesn't exist at the moment, because those influences we aren't aware of drive our choices in something very reminiscent of determinism.

As for the video, that's just the tip of the iceberg, and research is ongoing, but studies show a statistically significant trend.

 

[Unwardil]

But, just because actions have limited freedom doesn't mean that we have no free will. We have limited free will.

Just because we live in a society of laws doesn't mean we act in absolute deterministic certainty with those laws. Our actions are informed by loads and loads of things, most of which are subconscious because most of the brain is used for things like motor control and organ regulation. When you move your arms and legs, you don't consciously think about every muscle used in that action but the brain still has to control it and it encodes certain actions into memory for ease of recall. Muscle memory, in other words.

We know the brain is lazy by nature and prefers to recall familiar things rather than write new memory. This is why it's so easily fooled and why it's so easy to misplace things in your own house, because your brain develops a familiar image of your surroundings and will prefer to see that instead of what's actually there. It wouldn't surprise me if this priming thing isn't something to do with that tendency.

But just like the laws, we're not slaves to these tendencies. We can learn to recognize differences if we can be made aware of them and so change our behavior for the next time. I know there's been studies done which have been able to induce certain emotions, but I wonder if they've ever had the same people back for follow ups to see if they are able to resist being manipulated again. My personal intuition is that you'd see either a noticeable decrease in the success rate or that it would take a bigger dose in order to achieve the same effect. If there are tests on that, I'd love to see those too.

 

[Demojen]

Just because, just because.
Just because you say so, doesn't make your iteration of "just because" a valid argument. You're saying just because and not defending your statements despite the facts that support the alternative. Taking the position of skepticism is great, and I applaud the courage but being critical requires more then answering a logic argument with "Just because".

They would not have been able to take these individuals back to check on them again using the same priming method. That would taint the results.
It's a blind study.

However, I would be fascinated to see a series of different priming tests performed in sequence on the same individuals to demonstrate not only that it's a specific influence causing the priming but that it doesn't change between individuals under the same conditions.

One priming test is not enough to demonstrate that the cause is without a doubt the drink.

 

[Unwardil]

Just because you don't read my extrapolations on my ideas doesn't mean I didn't make them and just because you chose to ignore all the other words in my post doesn't mean they don't constitute the valid argument you claim to be missing.

 

[butterbattle]

I agree more with hackenslash. Although, we don't lack free will just by being restrained in "some" way; as far as we know, we are entirely restrained by physical processes.

 

[Unwardil]

Well, I'll give my standard reply to that.

If we are indeed restrained entirely by deterministic physical processes, explain the American flag on the moon.

If you had Laplace's demon working for you, could you have predicted the flag on the moon at the beginning of the universe? On paper, it defies all physical laws. Most technology does for that matter and all life comes dangerously close, but the flag on the moon is the best example to date of things where, if you didn't know that a person had put it there you'd but completely stumped to try and explain it any other way and without some other human interference it will probably be there for a very very long time.

Now then, right down to the quantum level, if there is ever a possibility where the probability of an electron taking a certain path is exactly 50/50 then there is true uncertainty which is going to percolate up to every level of existence through the atomic to the microscopic to the macroscopic. Stuff doesn't know where it's going to be. It has a really really high probability of being in a certain place, but things like humans with our imaginations and ability to put flags on moons for that .01% margin of error in even the most accurate predictions.

Now then, if you just don't want to call the inherent randomness in the universe 'free' well then fine, we're not really disagreeing, we're just calling it different things, but otherwise you're going to have to either debunk quantum physics or explain to me why my interpretation is completely off the mark in this case. Which it might very well be, but I don't think it is.

 

[Demojen]

If you have free will, I don't have free will. If I have free will, you don't have free will.

What your argument seems to amount to is to suggest that we are factors in the determination of everything, rather then we are just mere subjects to determination. However, being a factor doesn't mean factors have free will. They have influence but will implies choice.

Choice is not something you can possibly make arbitrarily. Altruism does not exist. People choose to do things as a result of contributing factors.

People don't choose to do things because that is who they are. They choose to do things because of why they are.


"It's not what you sell. It's why you sell it that people buy."

 

[Andiferous]

Demojen - if it's true we only really have one "choice" in everything, then how do you account for regret?

 

[Deleted member 619]

But, just because actions have limited freedom doesn't mean that we have no free will. We have limited free will.

No, it means we have will. No freedom can coexist with limitations.

Just because we live in a society of laws doesn't mean we act in absolute deterministic certainty with those laws.

Irrelevant to the choices. You always have the option of breaking the law and risking the consequences. That has nothing to do with restrictions on choice. And what I was talking about restrictions imposed by stimuli that we are unaware of in any event.

Our actions are informed by loads and loads of things, most of which are subconscious because most of the brain is used for things like motor control and organ regulation. When you move your arms and legs, you don't consciously think about every muscle used in that action but the brain still has to control it and it encodes certain actions into memory for ease of recall. Muscle memory, in other words.

We know the brain is lazy by nature and prefers to recall familiar things rather than write new memory. This is why it's so easily fooled and why it's so easy to misplace things in your own house, because your brain develops a familiar image of your surroundings and will prefer to see that instead of what's actually there. It wouldn't surprise me if this priming thing isn't something to do with that tendency.

Still irrelevant. Did you watch the video?

But just like the laws, we're not slaves to these tendencies. We can learn to recognize differences if we can be made aware of them and so change our behavior for the next time. I know there's been studies done which have been able to induce certain emotions, but I wonder if they've ever had the same people back for follow ups to see if they are able to resist being manipulated again. My personal intuition is that you'd see either a noticeable decrease in the success rate or that it would take a bigger dose in order to achieve the same effect. If there are tests on that, I'd love to see those too.

And still irrelevant. The fact that the stimuli exist is enough. The stimuli studied in the video are only the tip of the iceberg, and the reality is that we don't know how many of these stimuli are impacting our decisions or even what those stimuli might be. This is a new field of research.

Anyhoo, the mere existence of these principles nails free will to the wall. Unless our decisions are completely unrestricted and uninfluenced, our will isn't free, assuming we have will at all.

 

[Ozymandyus]

Completely free and free are not the same thing. There are degrees of freedom and trying to argue otherwise is just foolishness: it is an abuse of language that you are undertaking, not an ideological stand. The question at its heart that most people struggle with is are we even a LITTLE bit free, or are all of our actions completely and totally determined and our feeling of determining outcomes is merely an illusion?

In my opinion, most of our actions are determined... However, the human ability to future model and call on an UNREAL imagined world to affect actions and futures in the REAL world leave some doubt in my mind as to how determined our actions are. The fact that our imagined worlds affect the real physical world is indisputable. It at the very least is an additional layer of complexity that makes any foolproof determination of the actions of a human nearly impossible. At best, it is a mechanism by which we actually can be called free (not completely!) determiners of our actions.

Anyway, free will always leads to interesting, if often angry, discussion: people have such different meanings and qualifications for it. Fascinating.

 

[Unwardil]

Yes, I'll accept that the wording was inaccurate and that our will is certainly restricted by influences we are unaware of and do not understand. But I take a somewhat more pragmatic view of freedom, that which in order for it to be possessed at all it must be limited, so when I say free will, I'm referring to the fact that it will never be possible to say with a degree of absolute certainty even if you had laplace's demon working for you how your decisions are going to pan out.

 

[butterbattle]

If we are indeed restrained entirely by deterministic physical processes, explain the American flag on the moon.

If you had Laplace's demon working for you, could you have predicted the flag on the moon at the beginning of the universe? On paper, it defies all physical laws. Most technology does for that matter and all life comes dangerously close, but the flag on the moon is the best example to date of things where, if you didn't know that a person had put it there you'd but completely stumped to try and explain it any other way and without some other human interference it will probably be there for a very very long time.

I'm really at a loss as to what you're trying to say here. If I observed that there was an American flag on the moon, and I didn't know that a person had put it there, then I would simply do some research and conclude that some American had put it there. How does a deterministic universe not allow for an American flag on the moon? And, how does it, as well as most technology and all life, defy all physical laws, on paper?

Now then, right down to the quantum level, if there is ever a possibility where the probability of an electron taking a certain path is exactly 50/50 then there is true uncertainty which is going to percolate up to every level of existence through the atomic to the microscopic to the macroscopic. Stuff doesn't know where it's going to be. It has a really really high probability of being in a certain place, but things like humans with our imaginations and ability to put flags on moons for that .01% margin of error in even the most accurate predictions.

Now then, if you just don't want to call the inherent randomness in the universe 'free' well then fine, we're not really disagreeing, we're just calling it different things, but otherwise you're going to have to either debunk quantum physics or explain to me why my interpretation is completely off the mark in this case. Which it might very well be, but I don't think it is.

Ah, touché. My last response was way too short and simple, I guess.

With respect to quantum physics, you are correct that I do not consider an inherent physical randomness to be free will. Imho, it's a long, hard stretch, at best, to connect quantum to the philosophical concept of free will, which I still consider to be essentially incoherent. Ultimately, I do not see uncertainty as giving any "will." There may be uncertainty in the physical universe, but the "will" is still fully at the mercy of the physical universe. It can never be "free."

Uuuhh, let's try an analogy. I'm at a Coldstone Creamery, and I'm about to order ice cream. In a precisely determined universe, I have a 100% chance of ordering a Founder's Favorite. Suppose that, in some universe with some inherent randomness, an hour before it happens, I have a 60% chance of ordering a Founder's Favorite and 40% chance of ordering a The Pie Who Loved Me. I don't interpret this as possessing free will about which ice cream to order; it is simply a matter of probability.

I think you're also exaggerating the effect of quantum uncertainty though. Assuming that there is an inherent randomness in the universe, quantum fluctuations become negligible at the macroscopic level anyways. Elementary particles like strange quarks may behave strangely (hehe) all the time, but as stated on NOVA, if a human wanted to walk through a brick wall by exploiting quantum uncertainty, he'd have to push against the wall for virtually an eternity to have a decent chance of getting through the wall.

Over long periods of time, I suppose there is probably a butterfly effect, so I do not know if it is possible to predict the flag on the moon at the beginning of the universe. However, I think there is effectively no uncertainty about what a person is going to choose a short time before they choose it. So, in this universe, I have a 99.999...% chance of ordering the Founder's Favorite.

 

[Andiferous]

I think a really interesting point raised in this whole subject (and by Ozy in the first post), was the idea that supposing everything we do is actually determined, and in locating all the causes and their likely future effects, it is much easier to change the future when you know what the future is. If you know and understand the causes, you are better able to address and change them. So, in the end, if you are determinist and believe that everything we do is caused by something else, if you locate and identify those causes, then you are able to modify those causes to best result, paradoxically practicing a little bit of free will...

 

[Deleted member 619]

Completely free and free are not the same thing. There are degrees of freedom and trying to argue otherwise is just foolishness: it is an abuse of language that you are undertaking, not an ideological stand. The question at its heart that most people struggle with is are we even a LITTLE bit free, or are all of our actions completely and totally determined and our feeling of determining outcomes is merely an illusion?

I can't agree. The semantic argument concerning degrees of freedom is a mere diversion (by which I am not suggesting that it is 'mere semantics'. I happen to think that semantics is actually incredibly important, because it's about what words mean, and goes to the heart of effective communication. I'm not suggesting that this is an argument of semantics, but an evasion that employs semantics). Freedom is a digital thing. You have it or you don't. Is it possible to be partially imprisoned? Of course not.

In my opinion, most of our actions are determined... However, the human ability to future model and call on an UNREAL imagined world to affect actions and futures in the REAL world leave some doubt in my mind as to how determined our actions are. The fact that our imagined worlds affect the real physical world is indisputable. It at the very least is an additional layer of complexity that makes any foolproof determination of the actions of a human nearly impossible. At best, it is a mechanism by which we actually can be called free (not completely!) determiners of our actions.

Not sure what any of that has to do with influences on our decisions, and that is what lies at the heart of the discussion.

Anyway, free will always leads to interesting, if often angry, discussion: people have such different meanings and qualifications for it. Fascinating.

Indeed. The big problem for me is that people treat 'free will' as a single word, and it isn't even a single concept, but a concept of degree. In this instance, your above argument would hold water, but it doesn't, because free will is not one word, it's two. One of them is free, which means unrestrained and unrestricted. Partial strictures are still strictures, and refute freedom in its entirety. This is inescapable (pardon the intentional pun). We may have will. We definitely don't have freedom of will, because our will is restricted. If an omniscient entity exists, we don't even have will, free or otherwise.

These arise directly from the rigorous definitions of the words, and there's no gainsaying them without redefining the words until they mean something else, much like the vacuous and fuckwitted arguments with regard to atheism being a motivator, but that's by-the-by.