Free Will Is An Illusion, Biologist Says

[Ozymandyus]

Yes... But my point wasn't that nature isn't deterministic, it's that deterministic and fatalistic are not the same thing. A deterministic mind does not mean we do not have free will, was my point. I just used the genetics as a way to underline precisely why this is true. The hard wiring of our brains no more determines our fates than does the hard wiring of our genes.

Um, a fully deterministic mind DOES mean we do not have free will. Are you sure you understand what is meant by deterministic? If you are willing to accept that every event is directly caused by the outcome of prior events (determinism) then you have already foregone free will. Even the reintroduction of randomness via quantum mechanics (which does not necessarily introduce randomness into a system, it just represents the limits of our vantage point on seeing the exact order present in the system) does not allow for free will, which is something other people have already mentioned and the article takes into account, if I recall it correctly.

 

[Aught3]

Of course, you're correct, Aught3 - it's sex, rather than procreation, which is why it's called the "sex-drive".

Still, my earlier question remains standing...

Well I think the obvious answer to the question is that other factors, not just genetic, contribute to our decision making.

Newtonian physics yes, but as far as I know in quantum theory this doesn't apply any longer (Please correct me if I'm wrong).

as far as i know quantum indeterminacy is the result of our inability to *measure* velocity and location precisely at the same time, not an actual lack of concreteness in the behavior of the particles. so the fact is we are completely incapable of knowing all the information i listed, not just because there is too much of it, but because it is something we are unable to measure. it doesn't follow that there is not a theoretical creature, laplace's demon hehe, that could know all of this information. somehow....

I thought quantum mechanics killed-off Laplace's demon because the uncertainty principle means that you cannot know all the physical properties of particles with enough accuracy to predict the future. Laplace says if you could theoretically know everything about the state of the universe you could determine the future state. Heisenberg says you can't know everything about the current state, even in theory. He switched-out a deterministic universe for a probabilistic one.

Btw, it seems to me that OA is arguing for hard determinism whereas Unwar is arguing for a kind of compatibilism aka soft determinism, but I could be mistaken.

 

[Unwardil]

Yes, I do fully understand what is meant by deterministic and I do mean it in the hard sense of everything has a hard and fast cause.

I'm saying that in a sufficiently complex system, such as the universe, an ecosystem or the electrical impulses in the brain, it is not only incalculably impossible to know the outcome of that system until it has been run, but it is indeterminable because the system changes the rules by which it behaves as it goes along. The brain is not only programed by outside influences, but it actually programs it's self based on the programing it's written, which in turn sparks new re-writes, etc etc etc. It might follow very strict rules, but there's no way to tell how it's going to get there before it does.

Even if you know everything.

Whenever an electron is faced with the possibility of two perfectly equal distances to travel, for instance. Physics says it will choose the shortest path (well, least resistance) but given the option of two equal choices, it will 'choose' one or the other. The mind does this kind of thing an incalculable number of times every second and they all influence the darkness behind the eyes we think of as 'Me' and even though whatever thought that comes up with, in retrospect has a perfectly logical cause, can be understood, can be measured perfectly, there's still always only going to be one way to tell how it's going to end up and that's just to let it happen.

I wish I had some chaos math to cite to better explain this concept of emergence but, well, I don't. Suffice to say, the brain makes up it's own rules as it goes along and as much as those are based on outside influences and physics and biology and all that, the system is sufficiently complex that the only way to find out the answer is to hit 'play' and see what happens.

 

[aeroeng314]

Even if you could know everything about the state of the universe, what sort of machine would be capable of computing a future state? If you had a computer that could do it, that computer would necessarily have to contain a simulation of itself in addition to the rest of the universe. And that simulation would have to contain in itself another simulation of the universe and itself. So you have a problem of infinite recursion. If it lacked a simulation of itself, it would cease to work since its results would naturally influence future outcomes. So it doesn't even matter if you have the information, since you wouldn't be able to actually do anything with it in the first place.

 

[obsidianavenger]

I thought quantum mechanics killed-off Laplace's demon because the uncertainty principle means that you cannot know all the physical properties of particles with enough accuracy to predict the future. Laplace says if you could theoretically know everything about the state of the universe you could determine the future state. Heisenberg says you can't know everything about the current state, even in theory. He switched-out a deterministic universe for a probabilistic one.

Btw, it seems to me that OA is arguing for hard determinism whereas Unwar is arguing for a kind of compatibilism aka soft determinism, but I could be mistaken.

i agree that we can conceive of no way to measure both the position and velocity of a particle at a given time, but techically speaking wouldn't an omnipotent being have to know by definition?

and i actually consider myself a compatabilist, but define free will as our best approximation to human action, knowing that we are incapable of considering all factors. does that fit or have i defined free will out of existence?

 

[obsidianavenger]

Even if you could know everything about the state of the universe, what sort of machine would be capable of computing a future state? If you had a computer that could do it, that computer would necessarily have to contain a simulation of itself in addition to the rest of the universe. And that simulation would have to contain in itself another simulation of the universe and itself. So you have a problem of infinite recursion. If it lacked a simulation of itself, it would cease to work since its results would naturally influence future outcomes. So it doesn't even matter if you have the information, since you wouldn't be able to actually do anything with it in the first place.

this is interesting, i can't remember where i've heard it before. can't you just solve the problem though by positing a being "outside" of the universe observing it? all i am trying to establish with the idea is a visceral understanding of the concept of determinism- given all the *nearly* infinite information necessary, one could compute the future.

which i think applies to your point about chaos too unwardil- it seems chaotic to us because we can't keep track of all the factors, but it doesn't follow that there is an uncaused event in there somewhere or that human will is an independent feature of human action.

 

[Ozymandyus]

Yes, I do fully understand what is meant by deterministic and I do mean it in the hard sense of everything has a hard and fast cause.

I'm saying that in a sufficiently complex system, such as the universe, an ecosystem or the electrical impulses in the brain, it is not only incalculably impossible to know the outcome of that system until it has been run, but it is indeterminable because the system changes the rules by which it behaves as it goes along. The brain is not only programed by outside influences, but it actually programs it's self based on the programing it's written, which in turn sparks new re-writes, etc etc etc. It might follow very strict rules, but there's no way to tell how it's going to get there before it does.

Even if you know everything.

Whenever an electron is faced with the possibility of two perfectly equal distances to travel, for instance. Physics says it will choose the shortest path (well, least resistance) but given the option of two equal choices, it will 'choose' one or the other. The mind does this kind of thing an incalculable number of times every second and they all influence the darkness behind the eyes we think of as 'Me' and even though whatever thought that comes up with, in retrospect has a perfectly logical cause, can be understood, can be measured perfectly, there's still always only going to be one way to tell how it's going to end up and that's just to let it happen.

I wish I had some chaos math to cite to better explain this concept of emergence but, well, I don't. Suffice to say, the brain makes up it's own rules as it goes along and as much as those are based on outside influences and physics and biology and all that, the system is sufficiently complex that the only way to find out the answer is to hit 'play' and see what happens.

I know the argument you are making, I've read Dennet's conception of free will but you are missing the big point here:
It does not matter if you can or cannot predict something - if you have no control over it there is no free will. If it is some random determination that happens when the balance of probabilities is Just So ... that does not qualify for most people as free will even if it denies determinism in a certain sense (which you seemed to concede before. Furthermore I would venture to say that the apparent indeterminism of your theoretical electron's 'choice' would be clearly apparent from a certain privileged vantage point that we cannot attain - which is all quantum theory is stating. In the same way your 'choice' made by that complex bunch of neurons that seems so impossible to predict from a certain vantage point is completely predictable.

But again, I don't even completely disagree with Dennet's conception of free will - but it also does not essentially contradict the one presented in this article which is speaking about the appearance of control that our brains give us.

 

[Unwardil]

which i think applies to your point about chaos too unwardil- it seems chaotic to us because we can't keep track of all the factors, but it doesn't follow that there is an uncaused event in there somewhere or that human will is an independent feature of human action.

Ah, see the thing with chaos is not that there's any un caused element or even that there are multiple results that can stem from the same singular cause, but it's that you can't do anything without affecting everything. That's chaos, VERY simply put and if that were the end of it, that might be able to predict what would happen next given all the information available now.

But it's not that simple because the nature of how things behave changes depending on how the variables play out and besides, there's every indication using quantum physics that the same cause can produce multiple different results.

The very best example that the universe is not deterministically fatalistic however, is the American flag on the moon. Explain using the most complicated physics imaginable how a square of cloth with red and blue stripes on it ended up on the moon. You can't do it using physics, you have to do it using sociology of all things to get even remotely close to an explanation. For the same reason that physics can't predict an american flag on the moon, chemistry and biology is insufficient to eliminate free will.

Also, I already conceded the illusion of control is mostly subconscious tendencies and that we're not in anyway as in control as our minds seem to make us think, but that still doesn't in any way explain the problem of procrastination. It doesn't explain why, if I need to do my taxes and I have the forms all out in front of me I will suddenly find anything else to do rather than what I have to. It doesn't explain imagination, it doesn't explain people's ability to make a conscious decision that is very likely to result in death, especially when it's going to be painful and at any point during their suffering they could turn back, but they choose not to. The body and the subconscious certainly do affect the mind far more than we can precive them doing so, but the consciousness can override them too and that act can only be called will. That will may not be totally free to do whatever it wants, but it's by no means bound to some deterministic fate either. There's too many random variables for fate to exist, which means choices are actually made and not caused to happen. Those choices affect future development, ergo, freedom of a sort.

 

[Aught3]

i agree that we can conceive of no way to measure both the position and velocity of a particle at a given time, but techically speaking wouldn't an omnipotent being have to know by definition?

I find the idea of omnipotence to be inherently contradictory, so I don't believe such a being could exist, even in theory.

and i actually consider myself a compatabilist, but define free will as our best approximation to human action, knowing that we are incapable of considering all factors. does that fit or have i defined free will out of existence?

It's hard to tell. From your posts I read you as a hard determinist but ultimately I think this is one of the questions that is up to the individual. How you want to define our position is what matters, unless you think you don't have a choice :?

 

[obsidianavenger]

The very best example that the universe is not deterministically fatalistic however, is the American flag on the moon. Explain using the most complicated physics imaginable how a square of cloth with red and blue stripes on it ended up on the moon. You can't do it using physics, you have to do it using sociology of all things to get even remotely close to an explanation. For the same reason that physics can't predict an american flag on the moon, chemistry and biology is insufficient to eliminate free will.

it doesn't follow from this that determinism is untrue, only that certain levels of description are inappropriate for certain questions. i am willing to bet that a purely physical description of all the atoms involved would yield an exact description of the event- the what, how- but it wouldn't answer the question that is interesting to us, the why. the why is teleological, intentional, and requires an answer that appeals to intentionality. however, such a question also presupposes intentionaliy (ie will) and thus its answer cannot be held as evidence of the will except insofar as it is evidence for the experience of will (which is undisputed)

 

[Unwardil]

it doesn't follow from this that determinism is untrue, only that certain levels of description are inappropriate for certain questions. i am willing to bet that a purely physical description of all the atoms involved would yield an exact description of the event- the what, how- but it wouldn't answer the question that is interesting to us, the why. the why is teleological, intentional, and requires an answer that appeals to intentionality. however, such a question also presupposes intentionaliy (ie will) and thus its answer cannot be held as evidence of the will except insofar as it is evidence for the experience of will (which is undisputed)

You're telling me, that a sufficiently complex model of the universe could have predicted an american flag on the moon? Specifically american here. With the stars and the stripes. This model would have had to predict not only the rise of man but the rise of the united states and russia then the cold war between them but it would have also had to explain the orbit of the planets and the spin of every electron in the galaxy now and it would have had to do it when the universe began.

Sorry, not only don't I buy that, but quantum physics doesn't buy it either.

 

[obsidianavenger]

"american flag"- no. the term "american flag" is completely foreign on that level of description. when speaking in terms of elementary particles the phrase has no meaning whatsoever. that the atoms making up said flag in said configuration would eventually end up there in that shape can be explained purely deterministically- given enough information. the alternative is that some unknown force caused them to get there. a force capable of breaking the fundamental laws of physics.... i have no reason to think such physics denying events occur except a feeling of will. this is not enough to support a theory purporting will which contradicts everything else i know about the universe.

 

[obsidianavenger]

to be more clear: such a model would describe *only* the motion of particles- nothing more. the higher level goings on of those particles (life, united states, cold war, american flag) would be completely irrelevant when given such a treatment.

 

[Unwardil]

But... That's exactly what I'm talking about.

We know how flags are made, we know that it isn't a breach of the natural laws for them to be constructed. We have a very good understanding of all the principles of flag construction.

What I was attempting to illustrate is that by being alive, creatures change the nature of the way particles move in space and time. Gravity cannot explain how a person can walk, yet we do and we do so without breaking any physical laws. It should be impossible from the perspective of physics for a certain amount of water carbon and trace elements to simply get up and start moving around, but it happens all the time, in us and in everything living.

And the thing about thinking is that by thinking, we change the nature of thought it's self by coming up with new thoughts and those thoughts can inform our actions which cause even more unpredictable stuff like sending rockets to the moon and planting flags there just because we can and suddenly, you have what would look like a complete suspension of the natural laws because there's a very high concentration of iron on the moon where there should only be dust with trace amounts of it.

My point making any more sense yet?

 

[obsidianavenger]

But... That's exactly what I'm talking about.

We know how flags are made, we know that it isn't a breach of the natural laws for them to be constructed. We have a very good understanding of all the principles of flag construction.

What I was attempting to illustrate is that by being alive, creatures change the nature of the way particles move in space and time. Gravity cannot explain how a person can walk, yet we do and we do so without breaking any physical laws. It should be impossible from the perspective of physics for a certain amount of water carbon and trace elements to simply get up and start moving around, but it happens all the time, in us and in everything living.

And the thing about thinking is that by thinking, we change the nature of thought it's self by coming up with new thoughts and those thoughts can inform our actions which cause even more unpredictable stuff like sending rockets to the moon and planting flags there just because we can and suddenly, you have what would look like a complete suspension of the natural laws because there's a very high concentration of iron on the moon where there should only be dust with trace amounts of it.

My point making any more sense yet?

higher level descriptors aren't necessary though. they only simplify the notion for our understanding. the motion of the atoms making up a walking person could be calculated from the various velocities, energies, and interactions of those atoms. or, you could simplify the immense calculation and distill it into the sentence "she walked across the room". the higher level descriptors are approximations- as all descriptors and measurements are approximations- only they are increasingly less accurate the higher level you ascend to. dennett talks about moving from the physical stance, to the mechanical stance, to the intentional stance. they are all accurate to some degree (decreasing accuracy to each of course) but in many cases a less accurate description, from an intentional point of view for example, is more practical in helping us understand the relevant information. in rather the same way, newton's laws aren't entirely accurate, but they can still be used for most practical calculations of motions on scales we are accustomed to dealing with.

in relation to free will this means that there is no reason to assume it is "free" of the determinism that the lower levels of description are subject to, but that it is an extremely useful shortcut for comprehending the levels we are accustomed to dealing with.

 

[Unwardil]

Yes, but what I'm saying is from a physics standpoint, even if you could calculate the exact position of everything, it doesn't make sense for those atoms to be moving across the room and tracing the patterns they make unless you consider them within the context of the person. Only when you take into account that these atoms comprise a living being does the movement of their component atoms make sense on the physical level.

That's what I'm talking about.

Nothing in the known universe will move 5 meters, then stop for a while, then move in a totally different direction for 3 meters then stop a little more, then trace a complex yet seemingly random set of movements for a while, then move slowly in a slight arc with intermittent pauses and then SUDDENLY move much faster in more or less a straight line at varying speeds for about 15 minutes only to sit more or less stationary with more intermittent bouts of random activity for then next 8 hours before returning to the place it started.

The only kinds of atoms that behave in this manner are those of the human working adult getting up in the morning, making toast, forgetting where they put their keys and then driving to their boring desk job. Without the context of the human, the movement of the atoms makes no sense. The rules for how these particular atoms have been changed from if they were part of say, an asteroid.

Even so, a sort of pattern emerges of movement of the atoms for a while, but then two years down the road, mister corporate drone gets fed up, moves to California and becomes a professional surfer. Now the movements of his atoms no longer follow that rough pattern and again, if you don't consider the context of the whole, it makes no sense, to make matters even more complicated, at least 4/7ths of the atoms that used to make up captain born again beach bum aren't even a part of him anymore and are variously blowing around as dust or lying in a field as part of some fertilizer or as bacteria or whatever.

That's the rule changing power of life and thought. Deterministic, yes, but only in hind sight.

 

[Squawk]

Interesting, but at the same time, BS of the highest degree.

The Human mind's capacity for imagination is probably the best and most tangible example of will power I can come up with. Not only does it allow you to try and predict the future or forecast it to a certain extent but it makes the impossible possible. While someone may be genetically pre determined to have a more active imagination than someone else, I don't see how it's possible to be genetically predetermined to invent the telephone, for instance, when such a thing has never existed before. Imagination = Free will. And that's only one example but there are others.

[/quote]

So your pronouncement of BS was simply an appeal to incredulity? Interesting.

What do you propose will power is, if not a deterministic process that occures within the brain, prior thoughts influencing the next thought, over and over? Is the process stochastic, or deterministic? I'd argue for deterministic, though of couse influenced heavily by chaos theory.

While it may very well be true that in the split second of decision, we are overwhelmingly influenced by pre-existing subconscious conditions

It would seem you contradict yourself

to react along a very narrow envelope of reactionary possibilities and even though the process of our minds may be entirely deterministic, that still doesn't eliminate small scale decisions influenced entirely by will.

So you posit this entity, will, but presumably won't define it or alight on a mechanism. How is it different to any other process occuring in the brain.


Free will is a dangerous concept. On the one hand we must persist with the notion that it occurs in order to have any sense of justice, in order for a legal system, soceity and any notion of responsibility for ones actions.

At the same time we persist, day in and day out, in trying to remove free will. I did this because he told me that, they persuaded me to do this, I bought this because I read that advert. Pleas of diminished responsibility due to various circumstances, women getting off stealing charges due to PMS.

We all want free will, and my own contention is that none of us have it.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Or, as I think of it, "guided probability".

As you may remember (with my "game of chess" analogy), I've used this before in relation to the Laws of Nature leading to (the possibility/probability of) Life, but it's just as equally applicable to what we call "free will", given our "decision-making ability" is predominantly based on (bio-)chemistry, which is itself based on (quantum-) physics.

Perhaps without the illusion, we'd simply give up and die - maybe that's how evolution resulted in life-forms with sentience which believe/think they have free will: any others have died out.

(Reminiscent of "The Matrix" movie's climactic meeting between the Architect and Neo, where the latter is unable to accept his lack of "free will" - as the former points out, without the illusion, the VR world fails. Or Radiohead's music video - which I've seen both for "Creep" and "Just".)

Kindest regards,

James

 

[obsidianavenger]

Yes, but what I'm saying is from a physics standpoint, even if you could calculate the exact position of everything, it doesn't make sense for those atoms to be moving across the room and tracing the patterns they make unless you consider them within the context of the person. Only when you take into account that these atoms comprise a living being does the movement of their component atoms make sense on the physical level.

That's what I'm talking about.

Nothing in the known universe will move 5 meters, then stop for a while, then move in a totally different direction for 3 meters then stop a little more, then trace a complex yet seemingly random set of movements for a while, then move slowly in a slight arc with intermittent pauses and then SUDDENLY move much faster in more or less a straight line at varying speeds for about 15 minutes only to sit more or less stationary with more intermittent bouts of random activity for then next 8 hours before returning to the place it started.

The only kinds of atoms that behave in this manner are those of the human working adult getting up in the morning, making toast, forgetting where they put their keys and then driving to their boring desk job. Without the context of the human, the movement of the atoms makes no sense. The rules for how these particular atoms have been changed from if they were part of say, an asteroid.

i disagree. if determinism is true, then even seemingly biological actions, while they only *appear* to make sense on the level of intentionall description, are actually purely the result of physical actions of atoms. have you heard of conway's game of life? some of the more complex settings appear for all the world like they are moving around as a coherent whole, pursuing and fulfilling goals. but it is a purely computational and completely determined process that gives rise to them. the fact that something *appears* as if it could only be caused by intentional action does not imply that that is the only interpretation under which it makes sense. there are indeed a series of physical forces that would lead an atom to move five meters, stop, turn around, etc. no doubt they are very complex and depend upon the motions of many other atoms. calculation would be an absolute nightmare. but that doesn't mean it couldn't theoretically be done.

 

[Unwardil]

Ok, the point is this.

We cannot know now what all the rules for how things will behave in the future because at the moment, that's not how they work right now. Before the universe had cooled sufficiently for matter to form into atoms, there was no way to infer the existence of carbon isotopes, because if hydrogen had formed in another way, then all the carbon isotopes would be different. The information does not exist now to determine what the future will be unless you believe that time doesn't actually move but everything that will ever happen has already happened. There's no evidence at all that would suggest that however (to the best of my knowledge).