Does Physics disprove the existence of free will?

[Write4U]

In what respect, specifically, does it differ from a decision between alternatives - subsequently carried out as directed, by the will?

If we agree on the concept of "doing it over" would result in the exact same decision each time and, if the decision proved sound (not in error)
you would always make the same decision even at a later time, no?

Or, with equal validity, the previously emerged patterns we call "decision making" control the neural firing. Top down, patterns control substrates.

I kind of agree, except that specific neural patterns are memorized in the substrate and if succesful will always trigger the same electro/chemical response pattern. If the original choice was not effective that also gets recorded in memory and the new pattern will compel you make another choice. But not always. Hence the expression "set in his ways" (inflexible in thought)

Thereby demonstrating its physical nature subject to natural law, and excluding the supernatural hypothesis.

True, but it never prevents you from entertaining supernatural causalities. You are free to think random thoughts, but not free to make random decisions.
I'll admit this is purely speculative on my part, but it feels logical.....

It's fascinating stuff....

 

[Write4U]

see my post: #709 for part of your answer.

I really liked that post, but did it provide any conclusive answers?

I did notice your posit that rigid adherence to "ethics" might be instrumental in exercising free will, but then you would be tied to the laws of ethics and lose your own free exercise of ethical behavior.
Ethics is a "discipline", a mental programming, meaning you're no longer free to choose, no?

 

[iceaura]

you would always make the same decision even at a later time, no?

Not necessarily. Any change can affect the decision. Different inputs - outputs can change.

except that specific neural patterns are memorized in the substrate

? I doubt a single firing pattern in the human mind ever repeats exactly. And firing patterns are ephemeral - whatever is "memorized", it isn't a firing pattern.

 

[Write4U]

Not necessarily. Any change can affect the decision. Different inputs - outputs can change.

I agree.

? I doubt a single firing pattern in the human mind ever repeats exactly. And firing patterns are ephemeral - whatever is "memorized", it isn't a firing pattern.

Not according to Hameroff, if I understand him correctly. Long term memories are "fixed" and stored neural patterns, but can be triggered by some random cognitive event at another time and place.

Perhaps this is why we have moments of deja vu, when something triggers a deep memory

Scientific approaches reject the explanation of déjà vu as "precognition" or "prophecy," but rather explain it as an anomaly of memory, since despite the strong sense of recollection, the time, place, and practical context of the "previous" experience are uncertain or believed to be impossible

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Déjà_vu

 

[Sarkus]

In a fantasy universe as you have repeatedly described of course freewill is not possible.

As stated quite some time ago, QQ, first one has to be comfortable with the notion that in a strictly deterministic universe there is no actual ability to do otherwise. Only once that is achieved is it worth proceeding to the more complex scenario of a universe that offers inherent randomness. And iceaura is not there yet.

I have no argument with that.

Noted. You are an incompatabilist as well, then.

In fact, I don't think any one is arguing with that.

But they are, QQ. Such people are compatabilists; they believe that freewill is compatible with determinism. You are not one of those people, though. Fair enough.

In a fantasy universe that is strictly determined as per your limited use of logic, of course freedom of any sort is non-existent.

So agrees the incompatibilist.

You have set up a gedanken (thought experiment) that is impossible to refute and how you fail to see that is really disturbing.

It's not impossible to refute for the compatabilists, QQ - or at least so they believe.
Maybe you should raise your objections to iceaura's attempts to refute it? You are, after all, an incompatabilist, and iceaura is seemingly a compatabilist.

Unfortunately for you and fortunately for us the real world beckons.

Baby steps for some, QQ. Baby steps. If those I am discussing with (iceaura etc) can't get to the point of agreement regarding whether determinism is compatible with freewill or not, what point is there in moving to considerations of randomness etc?
So baby steps, QQ.
Now that you have admitted to being an incompatibilist, however, the conversation with you can start to progress further.

Have you ever considered that "it may actually be determined that the human being has evolved the genuine capacity to reject, agree or accept that which is determined?" That the human being spends the greater part of his life doing just that. That self determination ( freewill) is an essential aspect of a human's mortality.

You will claim irrelevance to your argument and of course according to your fantasy gedanken it probably is.

I do claim it is actually irrelevant, QQ, but not because of the limited case of the strictly deterministic universe, but because I do not see freedom within randomness either. And that would account for the indeterministic universe in which we currently reside.
So if you can explain how you accept that there is no ability to do otherwise in a strictly deterministic universe, but you see randomness providing that ability to do otherwise, then perhaps we can move even further ahead?
Otherwise all you're doing is saying that because the universe isn't strictly determined, we can ignore everything that led you to your incompatibilist view, and suddenly start looking at how things appear, at the conclusion we want, and argue from there. I.e. Your approach seem so inconsistent, hence I'd appreciate some clarification as to why/how you think randomness introduces an actual ability to do otherwise.

However this thread is not about your fantasy. It is about how physics(*) (not fantasy) may disprove the existence of freewill.

Baby steps, QQ.

You will need to demonstrate how your gedanken relates to the real universe before it can be given any credibility.

Reality is probabilistic, in that the same inputs always lead to the same probability function. The actual output achieved is random within that probability function.
So the strictly deterministic case is an extreme version of the probabilistic universe, when the probability function is for a singular output only. The only difference between the two is the added randomness.
Thus if we can agree that the strict case has no room for the ability to do otherwise, and the only difference between the strict case and reality is a smattering of randomness, you must be seeing that randomness as giving rise to an actual ability to do otherwise. Please can you explain how you see that arising?

People are dying every day in their fight for self determination - that is no illusion.

Appeals to emotion are not going to work, QQ.

 

[Sarkus]

QQ, I really do find it noteworthy that you are ready to attack my arguments which are currently specific to the strictly deterministic universe, yet you agree with the view that such an argument is incompatible with free will. I.e. You ultimately agree with my arguments.

And more noteworthy is that despite agreeing with that view, you don't respond to iceaura's challenge of it, given that iceaura is a compatiblist and believes freewill is possible in a strictly determined universe. In fact you jump on the back of iceaura's comments and rebuttals as if they support your own.
Post #760 of yours is a prime example, when you agree with iceaura, even though he is discussing the compatabilist view that the ability to do otherwise is compatible with the strictly deterministic universe, and you are of the view that they are incompatible.

Go figure.

 

[Michael 345]

? I doubt a single firing pattern in the human mind ever repeats exactly. And firing patterns are ephemeral - whatever is "memorized", it isn't a firing pattern.

Which goes to my point a short while back

The memorised portion of the decision being made is never the same so the output, even if the output follows the same pathway, is not the same BUT the resultant action is the same

Not deterministic as different brain firings give a same result

Still working on the subconscious mind telling the conscious mind what to do before the conscious mind has made up its mind

But really even though the subconscious does do this behind the scenes ordering IT IS STILL ME

My house lizard is hungry and not content with licking salt from my arm is bitting

Must be I got lost giving to many post here

 

[Sarkus]

The driver approaches the light. That driver has the ability to stop, or go. It's kind of simple, dude.

It really is simple: the driver thinks they have the ability to do either. They keep thinking that way up until the moment they do what they do, when the process delivers what has been predetermined aeons before.

(QQ, maybe you want to agree with iceaura here, given your confused approach to my argument thus far?)

You simply refuse to acknowledge physical reality.

We are discussing the specific case of the strictly deterministic universe, are we not? The physics of that system is precisely what I have been arguing from. Whether reality is strictly deterministic or not is a separate matter, given that we can't yet agree whether there is an actual ability to do otherwise in a strictly deterministic universe.

Either that , or you have some private definition of "ability" that makes about as much sense as your notion of an "appearance".

Perhaps the difference is that within this context you are judging an ability by the perception of what we might be able to do at a future time, whereas I am looking about what is possible at the time. We can all say that we have ability to do either A or B in the future, but the issue at hand is whether we are actually free in what we do when the time comes.

(Of course, you could be declaring time to be an illusion - so the stuff that in our deluded state appears to be going to happen in the future has already happened in some sense. You denied that, but you deny most of your assumptions by turns, as their consequences become apparent).

Please stop being so pathetic.

That would fail to account for the scientific observations (including mechanical recording), independent of anyone's thoughts or beliefs, by researchers in controlled settings - as well as everybody paying attention , of course.

Ah, yes, these links that you've never actually provided so far, that prove the existence of an actual ability to do otherwise, rather than them showing merely the process of "freewill" with no comment to make on whether it is actually free or not. I'm waiting.

It's called science, and it's you who can't escape it in this thread - which is why I bring it up.

I don't escape it, and I have no need to escape it. But you'll need to do more than simply go "it's science!" as if that proves your point. Provide the links. Show that their conclusion supports your case and rebuts mine.

Handwaving, and a complete muddle. Half the sentence is talking about some "process" that includes the light cone, the other half is talking about the human being making the decision, and together they make no sense at all.

It is neither Handwaving nor a muddle. Imagine the "decision" being whatever your television is showing at a given time in the future (say 10 seconds from now). The system required to show that picture is far larger than the television (the broadcaster etc) but nothing beyond 10 light seconds can possibly affect that picture. The closer in time you get to the point of decision, the smaller the sphere of influence. Until at the time of decision the picture is what it is.
Is that still too difficult for you to understand?

Drop the word "actually" - it's confusing you. (It's bringing in that supernatural assumption you keep denying you are making - it's synonymous. By "actual" you mean "supernatural").

You mean it's confusing you. And there is no assumption of supernatural, but it is a conclusion for the strictly deterministic system, as per the logic initially set out by Baldeee. By "actually free" I mean that is more than merely the belief and perception of being free, for example.

The human approaching the traffic light has - at that moment, prior to making the decision, prior to the light changing color - the ability to stop or go. That's a physical fact. To verify, run the situation several times with different light colors, and record the outcomes. Nobody's "beliefs" are involved.

Ah, is this the indeterministic system that you say isn't indeterministic? And you call me confused!

But that's not the situation. We have the same inputs leading to the same outputs, always and by assumption.

So the same light colour always leads to the same response by the driver? If yes, how is that an ability to do otherwise? If no, how is that not an indeterministic system (same inputs leading to different outputs)?
If your answer to the latter is that the inputs so are different then you are again not actually looking at whether there is an actual ability to do otherwise, but only in how it appears.

So we don't have indeterminism - indeterminism would be an illusion, here.

You're catching on. Something can be considered an illusion if it appears to be contrary to what it actually is.
And since determinism means that all our actions are set in stone aeons ago, where is this ability to do otherwise?

But I do. It's just that a mistake like that has nothing to do with this thread. The example of the driver approaching a traffic light does not appear indeterminate, for example.

It very much does. Same input but different output. That is almost the definition of indeterminate. But, because we know the system is deterministic (in a strictly deterministic universe) we can deduce that the different output must have been caused by different inputs - inputs that we were otherwise not aware of. And because we weren't aware of them, how can we possibly say from such a system and our view of it, that it is showing an actual ability to do otherwise?

We are not interested in the freedom or lack of freedom that your mythically closed system may or may not possess. It's irrelevant.
Is the human making the decision, or not? Because the human being is an open system, and if the human being is making the decision an open system is making the decision.
And it "actually" is, observably, making a decision. You can record the brain waves. Physics.

For the last time: no one has disputed that the process of making a decision occurs!

Was my post that confusing? Here - reread:
Can I dumb it down some more? Let's try: Different outputs demonstrate different inputs, by deduction from the deterministic assumption - your deterministic assumption. I got it from you. It's already done - no "good luck" involved, no further effort necessary.

So you didn't catch my "especially in our actual universe which isn't strictly deterministic". Your response of "it's called science" and bravado that it was possible thus included that scenario, thus I continue to offer you good luck in trying to show that, in our universe of indeterminacy, different outputs always mean different inputs.

However, if you were only referring to the case of strict determinism, then yes, you could indeed deduce that the different outputs were the result of different inputs. And thus the appearance of indeterminism (when one only looks at the inputs one is aware of) is illusory (I.e. Appears indeterministic but is actually deterministic).
Good, we've got that settled.
So, show me how the "science" that you refuse to link to shows that the process of the will is actually able to do otherwise, given that any difference in output from the same inputs that we are aware of must mean that there are other inputs we are not aware of? If they can't rerun the experiment with those exact same inputs (both those we are aware of and those we are not aware of) then where is the control to be able to argue that we have the ability to do otherwise?

Instead, all that we can conclude is that yes, freewill is a process that's we can observe in the lab, but at best it is only "free" with regard the causes that we are aware of. But know that this freedom, this indeterminacy, is illusory, because the system (when considering all inputs, not just those we are aware of) is deterministic.

 

[Write4U]

iceaura said:
The driver approaches the light. That driver has the ability to stop, or go. It's kind of simple, dude.

Actually the driver has the mental ability to respond to either red = stop, or green = go, whether he does either depends on the color of the light.

Arriving at the light driver responds to red by stopping, and if green by going. Where is the problem in making choice necessary?

The human approaching the traffic light has - at that moment, prior to making the decision, prior to the light changing color - the ability to stop or go. That's a physical fact. To verify, run the situation several times with different light colors, and record the outcomes. Nobody's "beliefs" are involved.

You are correct except for the fact that when the driver reaches the light it is either green or red. If the driver responds to red by stopping and to green by going, where is the necessity for making a decision?
No beliefs, no choices, just actual mental/physical response to the prevailing state of the light.

Ability to respond physically to either superposed state has nothing to do with anything except physical ability to react differently to either state. Being able to physically respond to a prevailing state has nothing to do with actually responding to a prevailing state.

Does the traffic light has the ability to change color? Yes. Does it have any choice to be red or green? No.
The traffic light is a deterministic system and the current state of the light color was determined when someone pulled the switch to start a timed sequence, maybe a month ago.

IMO, you are making it more complicated than it is in reality. "To verify, run the situation several times with different light colors, and record the outcomes", will always yield; red = stop and green = go

Unless one in a thousand drivers is color blind and sees red as green and vice versa. But even then the incorrect response is still compelled and not subject to choice.

This has nothing to do with belief or physical ability, it has to do with mental responses to a variable state.

If --> Then, does not mean; If --> maybe Not Then

 

[iceaura]

Actually the driver has the mental ability to respond to either red = stop, or green = go, whether he does either depends on the color of the light.

Yep. Everybody's on the page?
Nope:

Being able to physically respond to a prevailing state has nothing to do with actually responding to a prevailing state.

When the physical response is a decision, and the decision directs an act of will, and that act of will is the very thing we are recording as the "response", I'm not sure what you are talking about there.

"To verify, run the situation several times with different light colors, and record the outcomes", will always yield; red = stop and green = go

Unless one in a thousand drivers is color blind and sees red as green and vice versa. But even then the incorrect response is still compelled and not subject to choice.

If you are not persuaded by the brain scan data, the occasional errors, etc, that a decision is being made, you could always simply ask the test subject to alter their response at random trials - say, on a coin flip tails every third run they stop on green. I predict you will record an actual difference in response - showing that the color of the light did not compel the response, but instead informed a decision.

If the driver responds to red by stopping and to green by going, where is the necessity for making a decision?

Now we are in the realm of parody. Maybe reread that?

This has nothing to do with belief or physical ability, it has to do with mental responses to a variable state.

Or maybe it won't do any good to reread.
I admit to being baffled. The situation is about as simple as I can invent and still present the issue.

Possibility:
These guys are not in fact always viewing mental events in their full complexity as physical in nature, as subject to physical law and taking place in time and part of chains of cause and effect and so forth. On the one hand, hands wave at them as being "caused" or "compelled" by atoms or molecules or neurons or whatever - they are effects; on the other, they play no role as causes, they do not have effects of their own, they have no physical reality as entities on their own.

 

[Write4U]

When the physical response is a decision, and the decision directs an act of will, and that act of will is the very thing we are recording as the "response", I'm not sure what you are talking about there.

A physical response is not necessarily an act of will, but a physical reaction to an uncontrollable event. Empathic response is but one example. You cannot will the cascade of electro/chemicals in the brain.
Nor can you change the traffic light from red to green by will. Somebody else did that for you a month ago. All you can do is obey the command red = stop, unless you have a greater perceived motivating priority which overrides the initial state.

The physical ability to-do or not-to-do is not in question. The mental ability to will (make that choice) is.

 

[iceaura]

A physical response is not necessarily an act of will, but a physical reaction to an uncontrollable event

An act of will is an event in time and space, a physical event.

All you can do is obey the command red = stop, unless you have a greater perceived motivating priority which overrides the initial state.

You can obey the command or not obey it. Hello?

The physical ability to-do or not-to-do is not in question. The mental ability to will (make that choice) is.

It is not. The ability to make that decision - stop or go - is not in question.
As noted:

These guys are not in fact always viewing mental events in their full complexity as physical in nature, as subject to physical law and taking place in time and part of chains of cause and effect and so forth.

 

[Write4U]

An act of will is an event in time and space, a physical event.

A physical act is a physical act. No more no less. Will is a product of the brain and has nothing to do with being able to move your muscles to perform a physical act.

 

[river]

A physical act is a physical act. No more no less. Will is a product of the brain and has nothing to do with being able to move your muscles to perform a physical act.

Will does though

Will can move the body in any direction it wants . Will over rides instinct

 

[Write4U]

Will does though

Will can move the body in any direction it wants . Will over rides instinct

But the body does not produce Will. The brain does and it cannot do anything physical at all except process information and return a chemical motor response, leading to physical action.

A Lemur has a sense of logic (it can make a logical distinction between "more" and "less") and can be trained to compare quantities to arrive at a decision to take a specific action, leading to a reward. Free will? Conditioned auto-response?

 

[river]

river said: ↑
Will does though

Will can move the body in any direction it wants . Will over rides instinct

But the body does not produce Will. The brain does and it cannot do anything physical at all except process information.

Disagree

The Brain is behind ALL physical movement by the body , nervous system . Which extends to the whole of the body .

 

[Write4U]

Disagree

The Brain is behind ALL physical movement by the body , nervous system . Which extends to the whole of the body .

The brain is the director, not the actor.

 

[river]

The brain is the director, not the actor.

For fundamental functions of the body

Then the mind exists .

 

[Write4U]

For fundamental functions of the body

Then the mind exists .

For all physical actions. The brain itself is a lump of neurons enclosed in a totally dark environment and only perceiving what the physical senses receive, translate, and transmit to the brain via the neural network.

Please do watch the Anil Seth clip ;
https://www.ted.com/talks/anil_seth_how_your_brain_hallucinates_your_conscious_reality

The text can be viewed and downloaded, in addition to the visual demonstrations of mental "controlled hallucinations "
Excerpt:

Imagine being a brain. You're locked inside a bony skull, trying to figure what's out there in the world. There's no lights inside the skull. There's no sound either. All you've got to go on is streams of electrical impulses which are only indirectly related to things in the world, whatever they may be. So perception -- figuring out what's there --has to be a process of informed guess-work in which the brain combines these sensory signals with its prior expectations or beliefs about the way the world is to form its best guess of what caused those signals. The brain doesn't hear sound or see light. What we perceive is its best guess of what's out there in the world.

If you are in quest of knowledge about mental processes, this is a must-see lecture.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Sarkus
This forum is terrible when it comes to maintaining context in a "you said that" and "I said this" type conflict. But I will give it another try any how...

Quantum Quack said: ↑
In a fantasy universe as you have repeatedly described of course freewill is not possible.

As stated quite some time ago, QQ, first one has to be comfortable with the notion that in a strictly deterministic universe there is no actual ability to do otherwise. Only once that is achieved is it worth proceeding to the more complex scenario of a universe that offers inherent randomness. And iceaura is not there yet.

I was merely stating that any one can set up a thought experiment that forces one to accept the conclusion.
In your fantasy of a strictly deterministic universe, freewill is indeed incompatible.
I am comfortable in knowing that this is what you are proposing. However this in no way implies that I agree with your fantasy.
I am merely stating that your fantasy can only reach the one conclusion. But it is your fantasy not mine.
The reason I call it a fantasy is that it defies reality based observation and empirical evidence to the contrary. It appears to be willfully ignoring reality hence it's label of fantasy.

In other words I have no reason to grant your theory any credibility when it is applied to the real world.

What I would suggest to you is that you first acknowledge that self determination ( aka freewill) is self evident in Humans throughout history. Your conclusion that it must be a self-fraud or an illusion, is unsupported by the evidence of billions of individuals on a daily basis.

Then reconsider your thesis reasoning to accommodate such obvious evidence of self determination. Simply claiming that freewill MUST be an illusion ( a fraud) is not sufficient enough to gain credibility, especially when according to your strictly determinstic universe, that very illusion or fraud that you claim to exist, is also determined; that the universe ( from it's genesis) has determined that humans run around in the false belief that they are self determined and only have an illusion of freedom.

You prove also that your reading is rose tinted, suggesting strong confirmation bias when you illogically claim me to be an " Incompatabalist" when in fact every post I have made to this thread has indicated other wise, in fact the label "Compatabalist" whilst a label I would wish to avoid, is more appropriate.

My own particular understanding is very different to both compatablists and incombatalists, though leaning towards compatibility more so than incompatibility. ( the ancient Stoics are close but not quite on the mark IMO )

How you have arrived at the conclusion that I am an "Incompatabalist" is rather perplexing and troubling with regards to the credibility of your mental faculty.
The rest of your post is premised on your extraordinary and irrational leap to presume that I am an "incompatabilist" and accordingly deserves no further response.

It is not surprising to me, as science will try to tell us all, for example, that the night sky full of stars is a light show illusion, that we really have no idea what is happening in our immediate and far universe. ( due to considerable light info delay times)

Basically striving to tell us all that we are constantly deluded and our lives are full of sensory fraud does nothing to promote trust in ourselves and our observations of our surrounding reality. Simply because someone ( the scientist, thinker etc) has a theory that offers utility premised on a fraud to begin with.

Now, based on the illogical Big Bang model you seek to perpetuate a fraud by claiming an impossible strictly deterministic reality and that the very thing we live for, strive for, die for, is an illusion. That reality is determined to perpetrate a fraud.

...and you may wonder why mind control paranoia is so prevalent among the mentally challenged?