Assignment: "Freewill" (Pro/Con)

[bob x]

Although our desires cannot be calculated, much like predicting particles cannot be calculated, we still can have many desires at any given moment

And which of those desires prevails is a "free" event, not predictable in advance.

which begs the question, "Is our chosen action based on the most dominant desire?"

You're doing it again. You have changed the word "strong" to "dominant" but still have assigned no meaning to the word, while admitting that there is no way to assign any meaning to it. The question is, BEFORE the choice is made, is there some way to RANK the various desires, saying this one has "more" power than another? The answer appears to be "No"; only AFTER the choice is made can you say, tautologically, that the desire which won is the desire which won.

I don't mean to offend if I have offended you

I haven't taken any offense.

but your initial approach to this assignment was to say the least, "condescending" at best.

Your initial way of phrasing it was ultra-condescending, taking for granted a lot of things which are not just controversial, but to me seem obviously wrong-headed.

The truth is that Quantum Physics leaves a great deal of related questions unanswered, which is why it cannot yet prove freewill, just as it cannot yet disprove Con freewill.

I would agree that we do not yet know enough to prove anything. But a simple-minded mechanistic determinism, where everything must have prior physical causes, and competing influences must have quasi-numerical rankings that decide which one dominates the other, is just not adequate anymore.

Thanks for this. So are you saying that the brain may have an interface that allows free events in the quantum world to generate an impact at the larger scale deterministic world? If so, could you direct me to articles/links on quantum effects and the brain processes? I would like to find out more as this is an area that I've been thinking about for some time.

Roger Penrose's "The Emperor's New Brain" was a good layman-accessible read on the difference between computers and us. You can Google Penrose for more literature on the subject; the Wiki on him has good links to the views of his opponents. He notes that much of our brain is, of course, devoted to running complicated "programs" in an algorithmic and deterministic manner, but that is not all that is going on. For example, I get in my car, start thinking about something else, and find that "my car has driven itself" to my old place of work, where I did not need to go anymore; but this is precisely what we call "mindless" behavior, the opposite of "choosing" (whatever that consists of). We walk, without having to calculate, as a toddler must, the exact balancing of the feet at every moment, because the program is in there and we can now just execute it; but deciding which way to walk is something else.

Penrose was very excited about the "microtubule" structures in the neurons: these are long-chain molecules, with a + pole at one end and a - pole at the other, inside a sheathing sort of like a "Faraday cage" (something that isolates what is inside from external electric fields) so that the polarity can shift from one end to the other in a totally free manner. But then it turned out that similar structures are in all kinds of other types of cells, so his critics think it cannot really have all that much to do with "mind". Well, I think that this proves that life itself uses a lot of the "freedom" which the physics allows. An amoeba is particularly thick with microtubules all over its cell membranes: now, the membrane is not just the "skin", it really is the nervous system, the interface with the outside world, the way the amoeba senses what is out there and reacts by extruding pseudopods to try to grab this or that, or move this way or that. I believe that the amoeba, which we think of as so "simple", is already too complex to be emulated by a computer; that its "decisions" about where to extrude pseudopods are already an exercise in free will. It may not have much scope of its agency, but in so far as it is able to act, it acts freely.

 

[OAT]

Well consciousness can affect quantum events, as in the role of the observer in the Young's Double-slit experiment.

I don't think that just from the double-slit experiment, you can conclusively say it is the consciousness that causes the so-called collapse of the wave function. It is the act of measuring that resulted in the light behaving as particles. A thought experiment: suppose that you have the measuring instrument there and no consciousness to observe the result, would the outcome of the measurement remained the same now?

 

[OAT]

@ BobX
I've heard of Roger Penrose. I'll have to read the book you mentioned to understand him better.

You are pro freewill in this discussion. However, I am not too sure what "free" means to you in freewill. If free mean that there should not be any forces of any kind that act on the act of making a choice, would not that choice, the outcome of the act of making a choice, be a random event? However, I get a sense that this may not be what you meant by freewill.

 

[seattlegal]

I don't think that just from the double-slit experiment, you can conclusively say it is the consciousness that causes the so-called collapse of the wave function. It is the act of measuring that resulted in the light behaving as particles. A thought experiment: suppose that you have the measuring instrument there and no consciousness to observe the result, would the outcome of the measurement remained the same now?

Then you would just be back to quantum probabilities.

 

[OAT]

Then you would just be back to quantum probabilities.

Not necessarily. The act of measuring is the cause of the collapse, not the act of observation by a consciousness.

The act of measuring could be done by something inanimate in an accidental fashion, thereby collapsing the wave function without the need for an observing consciousness.

 

[seattlegal]

Not necessarily. The act of measuring is the cause of the collapse, not the act of observation by a consciousness.

The act of measuring could be done by something inanimate in an accidental fashion, thereby collapsing the wave function without the need for an observing consciousness.

Consciousness would still be in the realm of quantum probabilities without reading the measurements.

 

[OAT]

Consciousness would still be in the realm of quantum probabilities without reading the measurements.

I am afraid you lost me. Consciousness in the realm of quantum probabilities? What do you mean?

 

[seattlegal]

We wouldn't know unless we read the measurements, so our knowledge would still be limited to quantum probabilities.

 

[seattlegal]

Interesting!
Wheeler's delayed choice experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Delayed choice quantum eraser - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bob x]

If free mean that there should not be any forces of any kind that act on the act of making a choice, would not that choice, the outcome of the act of making a choice, be a random event?

There are no forces of any material kind; I don't like the word "random" because it technically just means that it is "statistically independent" of the spatiotemporal distribution of the material particles. That does not mean that there are no causal factors, or that the causal factor is in the nature of a random-number generator (the "Casino Royale" model of God throwing trillions of dice), but that any causal factors we postulate are non-material in nature.

 

[OAT]

We wouldn't know unless we read the measurements, so our knowledge would still be limited to quantum probabilities.

You are asserting that consciousness (of an observer) is required. I am saying that only a measuring instrument is required. Whether that measuring instrument is eventually in the form of an observer's mind/brain is not the point. The measuring instrument could be something inanimate and the measurement could have occurred fortuitously.

 

[OAT]

@BobX,
I am not sure I understood you. I think I need to know how you see or understand "free" in freewill. Could you elaborate?

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

I don't think that just from the double-slit experiment, you can conclusively say it is the consciousness that causes the so-called collapse of the wave function. It is the act of measuring that resulted in the light behaving as particles. A thought experiment: suppose that you have the measuring instrument there and no consciousness to observe the result, would the outcome of the measurement remained the same now?

This is a key point. In the double slit experiment the observer has already decided which aspect she will observe. This imposes bias. Even to say that light must conform to wave or particle process introduces observational bias. Of course the observer seems to control, but it is the observer who set up the parameters, so that's useless. Quantum physics tells us that particles seem to appear in specific locational orbits due to the weight of observational probability. It's like watching the spokes of a wheel seem to spin backwards at certain speeds. It is an optical, observational illusion. "Particles" don't actually exist. What we see are flashes that seem to appear in certain locations due to the probability weight of our observational modeling. The "particles" themselves are non-locational, but we're geared to see particles, so we do.

Chris

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

You are asserting that consciousness (of an observer) is required. I am saying that only a measuring instrument is required. Whether that measuring instrument is eventually in the form of an observer's mind/brain is not the point. The measuring instrument could be something inanimate and the measurement could have occurred fortuitously.

Measurement is a product of the observational process. You can't have measurement without an observer. What's the point of a gauge that no one checks?

I'm not really sure what quantum physics has to do with free will. Of course we have innate free will, otherwise every human would want the same things. Beyond survival needs every human plots his or her own course. Even in a deterministic universe there are enough choices to make each individual's possibilities unique.

Chris

 

[bob x]

@BobX,
I am not sure I understood you. I think I need to know how you see or understand "free" in freewill. Could you elaborate?

I am using "free" as a more evocative substitute for "random": we know what these things are NOT determined by (the material arrangement), but not what they ARE determined by ("random" suggests control by some roulette-wheel or dice-toss process). I don't really "understand" it, or claim to; I don't think anybody does.

 

[OAT]

 

[seattlegal]

Anyone notice how the "Bell Curve" distribution looks like a wave function?

 

[Gatekeeper]

And which of those desires prevails is a "free" event, not predictable in advance.

Predictable and influenced by are to different things. I reckon if there were a way to measure our desires, they would be predictable. We will do what we desire to do, even if one cannot predict the course of action another takes.

You're doing it again. You have changed the word "strong" to "dominant" but still have assigned no meaning to the word, while admitting that there is no way to assign any meaning to it. The question is, BEFORE the choice is made, is there some way to RANK the various desires, saying this one has "more" power than another? The answer appears to be "No"; only AFTER the choice is made can you say, tautologically, that the desire which won is the desire which won.

So ... Are you suggesting that given our many conscious desires at any particular moment that the one desire we desire most won't be chosen? Just because a desire cannot be measured doesn't mean that one desire is not more desirable than another.

Also, our neural process is quite a bit quicker than our conscious mind, but the end result of our neural processes will always turn into a conscious desire, whether we choose chocolate and strawberry.

I haven't taken any offense.

Good

Your initial way of phrasing it was ultra-condescending, taking for granted a lot of things which are not just controversial, but to me seem obviously wrong-headed.

That we are ultimately driven by desire? Is that really so controversial? Maybe we are driven by neural activity, and that activity is caused by any number of factors, the end result is STILL a conscious desire, even if it takes our conscious awareness a while to catch up.

I would agree that we do not yet know enough to prove anything. But a simple-minded mechanistic determinism, where everything must have prior physical causes, and competing influences must have quasi-numerical rankings that decide which one dominates the other, is just not adequate anymore.

Now I'm simple minded, and even before this "wrong headed"? When will the ad homs cease? Dammit man! Is it possible for you to engage without the insults? We may not be able to prove Con or Pro, but it seems likely to me that Con is the more reasonable and logical conclusion.

Life has been set in motion. Everything is connected, thus the first cause dictated the course the rest would take. Like a ripple caused by a drop in a pond, the first cause of life extends far into the future, creating a ripple effect that the rest of existence is ultimately subject to.


GK

 

[seattlegal]

So ... Are you suggesting that given our many conscious desires at any particular moment that the one desire we desire most won't be chosen? Just because a desire cannot be measured doesn't mean that one desire is not more desirable than another.

Methinks we need to distinguish between desire and will again.

That we are ultimately driven by desire? Is that really so controversial?

Yes, it is controversial, especially if you do not distinguish between desire and will.

Maybe we are driven by neural activity, and that activity is caused by any number of factors, the end result is STILL a conscious desire, even if it takes our conscious awareness a while to catch up.
Now I'm simple minded, and even before this "wrong headed"?

The fallacy of petitio principii, or "begging the question," is committed "when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof."[3] More specifically, petitio principii refers to arguing for a conclusion that has already been assumed in the premise, in effect "begging" the listener to accept the "question" (proposition) before the labor of logic is undertaken. The fallacy may be committed in various ways.
​

Because you need to distinguish between desire and will! Between lust and volition!

When will the ad homs cease? Dammit man! Is it possible for you to engage without the insults? We may not be able to prove Con or Pro, but it seems likely to me that Con is the more reasonable and logical conclusion.

Is the logical fallacy of begging the question reasonable and logical? Or is this your desire talking here, masquerading as reason?

 

[Gatekeeper]

Methinks we need to distinguish between desire and will again.


Yes, it is controversial, especially if you do not distinguish between desire and will.

The fallacy of petitio principii, or "begging the question," is committed "when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof."[3] More specifically, petitio principii refers to arguing for a conclusion that has already been assumed in the premise, in effect "begging" the listener to accept the "question" (proposition) before the labor of logic is undertaken. The fallacy may be committed in various ways.
​

Because you need to distinguish between desire and will! Between lust and volition!

Is the logical fallacy of begging the question reasonable and logical? Or is this your desire talking here, masquerading as reason?

Desire is more related to want than lust, although some desires might be said to be lustful. Will is defined as the mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action.

Semantics aside, the question isn't if we have a will, the question is if our will is free? If we are motivated to act by our desires or by what we want most, then I'd say our will (Deliberate course of action) would ultimately be determined by our strongest conscious want/desire.

I think there must first be a cause that determines what one wants. Then that want/desire determines one's will (Course of action) then comes the act itself.

(Cause, Desire, Will, Action)

Everything is connected, thus the first cause (God?) dictates the course the rest of existence will take. Like a ripple caused by a drop in a pond, the affects of the first cause of life extends far into the future x infinity, creating a ripple effect that the rest of existence is subject to. Our physical realm is autonomous, as is the Spiritual realm. We as humans, however, are not "self" governing, but are rather governed by both the spiritual realm and the physical realm (Life/existence) which motivates us to act according to our circumstances.


GK