The illusion of free will

[Sarkus]

You're confusing output with probability function. Those are not the same thing.

FFS, MR, I am not confusing the two!
Do you not understand what a probability function means? It means that if you start with exactly the same conditions an infinite number of times, the outputs you get will be described by the probability function. So to refer to the output as a probability function means that the distribution of possible outputs (should the event occur an infinite times) will match the probability function.
In this way, one could say that the of output of a coin toss is a probability function of p(x) = 1/2.
I.e. After an infinite number of tosses you will end up with heads 50% and tails 50%.

Probabilistic determinism means that if you start with the same conditions your output adheres to the same probability function.
A probability function (in this context) describes the distribution of outputs.

Here's what probabilistic indeterminism really should say: same inputs lead to different outputs. There is iow no inevitability in probabilistic indeterminism as there is in determinism. One among several outputs is always possible, unlike determinism where only one output is possible. Sinking in yet?

Why are you switching the label to probabilistic indeterminism. The point of referring to it as probabilistic determinism is that the probability function that describes the possible outputs is always the same for a given starting condition.
In this way it echoes determinism (same inputs gives same output) but instead of a single output you end up with a single probability distribution function of possible outputs.

Is there any thing else you want to accuse me of being wrong about through your misunderstanding?

 

[Sarkus]

Then you should acknowledge that the view behind the scenes in fact confirms that decision-making is having a real causal influence on our motor actions.

I give up, MR. For the umpteenth time what you have posted would be the same whether we have an illusory freewill or not. I.e. It is not evidence of one or the other.

This single post, given what has already been discussed, just confirms that you have not grasped a single thing that either I or barcelonic have been saying.

 

[Magical Realist]

FFS, MR, I am not confusing the two!
Do you not understand what a probability function means? It means that if you start with exactly the same conditions an infinite number of times, the outputs you get will be described by the probability function. So to refer to the output as a probability function means that the distribution of possible outputs (should the event occur an infinite times) will match the probability function.

Obviously if you can compare actual outputs to a distribution of possible outputs, or describe the outputs WITH a probability function, then they are not the same thing. The role of a dice has an input, and then has an output. What number turns up. That output is not a distribution of possible outputs. It is an actual outcome that could have turned out differently. Are you grasping the difference between mathematical constructs and actual events yet? Can't you see that if we are comparing individual outputs with determinism, we must do the same with probabilistic indeterminism?

 

[Magical Realist]

I give up, MR. For the umpteenth time what you have posted would be the same whether we have an illusory freewill or not. I.e. It is not evidence of one or the other.

This single post, given what has already been discussed, just confirms that you have not grasped a single thing that either I or barcelonic have been saying.

No..an illusory freewill would show no causation process going in the brain. It would exist isolated in a different part of the brain: I guess where we imagine things or have illusions. And there would be no connection to the motor activity we see is the case with decision-making. Whatever you are positing to be causing action besides decision-making would be seen causing it. But we see no other activity doing that. Neuroscience is very clear on this.

 

[C C]

I found this article that offers some clarity on what freewill is and whether neuroscience proves it is an illusion or not. It backs up much of what Yazata says about it in his own insightful posts. [...] This is what we should expect with simple decisions. Indeed, we are lucky that conscious thinking plays little or no role in quick or habitual decisions and actions. If we had to consciously consider our every move, we’d be bumbling fools. [...] We need conscious deliberation to make a difference when it matters — when we have important decisions and plans to make. The evidence from neuroscience and psychology has not shown that consciousness doesn’t matter in those sorts of decisions — in fact, some evidence suggests the opposite. We should not begin by assuming that free will requires a conscious self that exists beyond the brain (where?), and then conclude that any evidence that shows brain processes precede action thereby demonstrates that consciousness is bypassed. Rather, we should consider the role of consciousness in action on the assumption that our conscious deliberation and rational thinking are carried out by complex brain processes, and then we can examine whether those very brain processes play a causal role in action.

Again, I'd like to know how any process transpiring in a brain -- conscious or unconscious -- can get so disregarded as not being part of that body / person. Or of not contributing to that individual's autonomy (as opposed to heteronomy, of dependency upon another's will or principles, like a wooden marionette). Having no regulatory structure or framework at all would mean being an arbitrary, jumbled aggregate. To begin with I have to be a somewhat predictable organization / functional form so as to exist as other than a sandpile, rock or piece of driftwood.

"Free" isn't liberty from one's own present and prior history of internal causes but "free" from reliance upon external causes for producing one's actions. A scarecrow is indifferent to threats that it will be set afire if it does not obey a thug; there is nothing "in there" to even understand the situation and lack of choices, much less generate a decision / response which avoids destruction. The inevitability or high likelihood of the latter choice hardly eliminates a human having a self-contained volition free from outer dependencies.

 

[Sarkus]

Obviously if you can compare actual outputs to a distribution of possible outputs, or describe the outputs WITH a probability function, then they are not the same thing. The role of a dice has an input, and then has an output. What number turns up. That output is not a distribution of possible outputs. It is an actual outcome that could have turned out differently. Are you grasping the difference between mathematical constructs and actual events yet? Can't you see that if we are comparing individual outputs with determinism, we must do the same with probabilistic indeterminism?

Are you arguing here just for the sake of it??? By describing it as a probability function rather than as "an actual outcome that could have turned out differently" adds the information that if time was run again with the same starting conditions to that event then the possible outputs adhere to the same probability function.
I.e. in a single description we define not just the actual output that did happen but the nature of ALL possible outputs.

Why are you being so pedantic??!

 

[Sarkus]

No..an illusory freewill would show no causation process going in the brain. It would exist isolated in a different part of the brain: I guess where we imagine things or have illusions. And there would be no connection to the motor activity we see is the case with decision-making. Whatever you are positing to be causing action besides decision-making would be seen causing it. But we see no other activity doing that. Neuroscience is very clear on this.

The decision-making process you see IS the same process that goes on whether freewill is illusory or not.

When you look at a mirage and perceive it as water, your brain does not behave in any differently than as if it was genuinely water.
But according to you, if we saw a perfect hologram that was visually indistinguishable from a real person, our brain would somehow be working differently.


It seems that every post you now make just highlights your failure to understand the basic argument behind the understanding of freewill as illusory.
Go back and start this thread from the beginning, MR.
It is seemingly pointless to discuss such issues with one who patently is unable to comprehend them, who does nothing but stick fingers in his ears and bleat "blah blah blah I am not listening blah blah blah" only to repeat the same points that have already been addressed, again and again.

Please offer something new, MR. At least show that you have understood the basic substance of the argument as it has been presented, without distorting the premises, the arguments etc. If you disagree with them, fine, explain why and we can discuss. But at least disagree with them once you have understood them rather than as a knee-jerk reaction because you don't like the conclusion.

 

[Magical Realist]

Are you arguing here just for the sake of it??? By describing it as a probability function rather than as "an actual outcome that could have turned out differently" adds the information that if time was run again with the same starting conditions to that event then the possible outputs adhere to the same probability function.
I.e. in a single description we define not just the actual output that did happen but the nature of ALL possible outputs.

Why are you being so pedantic??!

I'm simply showing how a probable outcome is not a determined outcome in any deterministic sense whatsoever. That's why you are better off calling it probabilistic INdeterminism instead of probabilistic determinism. The outcome is Undetermined and only probable each time, no matter what the probability function dictates.

 

[Uncle Pythagoras]

Particles move into the area of least resistance. A rock rolls down a hill. Water falls off a waterfall. The physics of particles have no choice but to follow cause, and effect.

But we get to Mount Everest, we can walk around it, or we can climb up it. Where is the cause, and effect now? It seems to me that we are free of cause, and effect. Now you want to say that the physics are still happening in our brain, and that we are not free. Ok so our brain is made from particles, but they are interacting with our brain particles. The cause, and effect is trapped within us. It doesn't matter if we are the particles, because so long as our particles are only used by us they are still our own cause, and effect. We are really a hive, and all of our hive works together. The rest of the Universe is separated from us at some quantum level. Our cause is our cause.

 

[Magical Realist]

The decision-making process you see IS the same process that goes on whether freewill is illusory or not.

No it isn't. Neurologically speaking decision-making really causes motor activity. If it were mere illusion it wouldn't be doing this. The illusion of freewill wouldn't be causing anything. Why is it hard for you to grasp this simple line of logic?

When you look at a mirage and perceive it as water, your brain does not behave in any differently than as if it was genuinely water.
But according to you, if we saw a perfect hologram that was visually indistinguishable from a real person, our brain would somehow be working differently.

You're not saying our mere perception of freewill is an illusion. You are saying freewill is really an illusion and is not occurring. You are thus positing something other than the neural correlate of decision-making as the causal agent. There is simply no evidence for such. You cannot say that the brain area causing motor action is both really causing it and only illusorily causing it. You cannot say decision-making is really causing my hand to move, and not causing my hand to move at the same time.The illusion of deciding to move my hand would simply be that: an illusion that my decision moved it. Something else would then show up as really moving it. What would that be?

It seems that every post you now make just highlights your failure to understand the basic argument behind the understanding of freewill as illusory.
Go back and start this thread from the beginning, MR.

I already took your whole argument apart. Or did you fail to notice? There are so many conflicting premises and qualifications of premises, with conclusions that don't even follow, that it simply becomes tedious pointing this out to you over and over. You have no basis whatsoever for claiming freewill is an illusion, and in fact all the evidence is stacked against you.

It is seemingly pointless to discuss such issues with one who patently is unable to comprehend them, who does nothing but stick fingers in his ears and bleat "blah blah blah I am not listening blah blah blah" only to repeat the same points that have already been addressed, again and again.

I simply don't accept your unevidenced premises. You make wild claims that events can be uncaused, or uncausal, or determined, but only probabilistic, or illusory and real at the same time. And then you expect us to take seriously your conclusion that this all means freewill is an illusion. We're not going to do that. We are going to continue to point out the flaws in your premises AND your conclusions. If that frustrates you, oh friggn well.

 

[Sarkus]

I'm simply showing how a probable outcome is not a determined outcome in any deterministic sense whatsoever. That's why you are better off calling it probabilistic INdeterminism instead of probabilistic determinism. The outcome is Undetermined and only probable each time, no matter what the probability function dictates.

Except where the probability function is p(x)=1.
But why are you bothering to argue semantics - and doing so as if it makes a difference to the argument?
I have previously explained what is meant by the term, even expressly stating that it is inherently indeterministic. So why bother???

 

[Magical Realist]

Again, I'd like to know how any process transpiring in a brain -- conscious or unconscious -- can get so disregarded as not being part of that body / person. Or of not contributing to that individual's autonomy (as opposed to heteronomy, of dependency upon another's will or principles, like a wooden marionette).

This is how the freewill is an illusion argument goes astray. It assumes that freewill is something separate from the physical processes of the brain, and so is caused or determined by them, and so is not really freewill at all. But such is not the case. Freewill is simply the same thing as those processes, so that there is no issue of them causing it as if it were something floating outside of the brain. Once we accept the identity of freewill with brain processes, we can then focus on how those processes occur autonomously and independently of outer influences.

 

[Magical Realist]

Except where the probability function is p(x)=1.
But why are you bothering to argue semantics - and doing so as if it makes a difference to the argument?
I have previously explained what is meant by the term, even expressly stating that it is inherently indeterministic. So why bother???

You claimed probability functions meant that outputs were somehow determined. They are not. No single output is determined but only occurs probablistically. It is underdetermined. IOW, it is not bound to happen given a certain input, as determinism entails. Why can't you grasp this distinction between probable and determined?

 

[Sarkus]

No it isn't. Neurologically speaking decision-making really causes motor activity. If it were mere illusion it wouldn't be doing this. The illusion of freewill wouldn't be causing anything. Why is it hard for you to grasp this simple line of logic?

Because you're talking rubbish, that's why.
Noone is disputing that neurologically speaking there are actions that cause motor activity. It is a red-herring on your part, and has not been mentioned by anyone.
For the last time: the activity remains the same regardless of whether illusion is real or not. The interpretation of that activity is where any difference may lie (i.e. whether it is merely part of a causal chain or whether it is the initiator etc) but in both cases we will perceive it as the same.
Noone disputes that if I choose to raise my hand that I can raise my hand. That has never been in question. The neurological activity is there.
It is what causes this decision in the first instance that is the issue. It is the perception of freewill (that it initiates the activity) that is the illusion, when the reality (per the argument) is that it is caused, and at no point can there be an agent that is both uncaused and non-random, which would be required for freewill because every other agent behaves either deterministically or randomly (within the probability function).

You're not saying our mere perception of freewill is an illusion. You are saying freewill is really an illusion and is not occurring. You are thus positing something other than the neural correlate of decision-making as the causal agent. There is simply no evidence for such. You cannot say that the brain area causing motor action is both really causing it and only illusorily causing it. You cannot say decision-making is really causing my hand to move, and not causing my hand to move at the same time.The illusion of deciding to move my hand would simply be that: an illusion that my decision moved it. Something else would then show up as really moving it. What would that be?

I give up, MR.
As I said, every post seems to be you spiralling into further and further misunderstanding, despite 18 pages of explanations.
Whether you do this deliberately or not I have no idea, but I have not come across anyone who is so adept at misunderstanding the same points so repeatedly.

The illusion is in perceiving freewill as being the initiator of actions when it is in fact just part of the causal chain. But because we are unconscious of the chains up to the point of consciousness, we perceive our conscious free will as being the initiator. The reality (as argued) is that it is not the initiator, and thus there is a difference between what we perceive and the reality (as argued). Such differences between perception and reality are commonly referred to as illusions.

I already took your whole argument apart. Or did you fail to notice? There are so many conflicting premises and qualifications of premises, with conclusions that don't even follow, that it simply becomes tedious pointing this out to you over and over. You have no basis whatsoever for claiming freewill is an illusion, and in fact all the evidence is stacked against you.

Yes, MR, that's right. You've taken it apart. I'm so sorry for having ever doubted you. Yet, and humour me here, if you go back and reread the thread, you will notice that every single criticism you have raised has been shown to flawed, either through just being wrong, or through your misunderstanding of the argument.

I simply don't accept your unevidenced premises. You make wild claims that events can be uncaused, or uncausal, or determined, but only probabilistic, or illusory and real at the same time.

Your misunderstanding is astounding, as well as introducing new claims I have never made.

And then you expect us to take seriously your conclusion that this all means freewill is an illusion.

If you understand the premises and the argument, yes. But you have amply demonstrated an ability to do neither.

We're not going to do that.

I rather think you're incapable of doing that. It honestly appears to me that you are unable to understand even the basic terms sufficiently to grasp the argument, and rather than admit to that (even to yourself) you merely see the conclusion, don't like it, and then post anything you can lay your hands on to try to show how the argument and/or premises are flawed. Yet numerous times, evidenced within this thread, you have posted nothing that supports your criticism while thinking it does.

We are going to continue to point out the flaws in your premises AND your conclusions. If that frustrates you, oh friggn well.

It frustrates me that you continue to point out what you believe to be flaws despite me having spent much of the past 18 pages or so showing how they are not, and how your criticisms are unfounded. It is your repetitive bleating the same misunderstandings, and the numerous times you have simply made up what you think I have claimed (as evidenced in this very last post of yours where you have claim that I said events can be uncausal) - that gets tiresome.

Most trolls don't use as many words as you, but their effect is the same.

 

[Sarkus]

You claimed probability functions meant that outputs were somehow determined. They are not. No single output is determined but only occurs probablistically. It is underdetermined. IOW, it is not bound to happen given a certain input, as determinism entails. Why can't you grasp this distinction between probable and determined?

Again, where have I said they were somehow determined?
It seems I can say X, and then a few posts later you claim I have said the opposite.
I have repeatedly said that probability functions are inherently indeterministic. Why do you suddenly fail to remember?
Post #337: "I have also never said that they determinism and probabilistic determinism were not mutually exclusive, and have repeatedly told you that probabilistic determinism is inherently indeterministic."
Post #337: "And yes, a probability function results in one of many possible outcomes, and is thus inherently indeterministic."
Post #290: "Wow, have you looked at the assumptions I used... see where it said probabilistic determinism, which as explained is inherently indeterministic, which looks at probability."
Post #272: "So yes, I admit the possibility of caused events that are inherently indeterminate (through probabilistic determinism), and that these caused events are not determined but random (within their probability function)"
Just to go back only a few pages.

So please stop with the trolling, because that is all you seem to be doing now.

 

[Magical Realist]

Again, where have I said they were somehow determined?
It seems I can say X, and then a few posts later you claim I have said the opposite.
I have repeatedly said that probability functions are inherently indeterministic. Why do you suddenly fail to remember?
Post #337: "I have also never said that they determinism and probabilistic determinism were not mutually exclusive, and have repeatedly told you that probabilistic determinism is inherently indeterministic."
Post #337: "And yes, a probability function results in one of many possible outcomes, and is thus inherently indeterministic."
Post #290: "Wow, have you looked at the assumptions I used... see where it said probabilistic determinism, which as explained is inherently indeterministic, which looks at probability."
Post #272: "So yes, I admit the possibility of caused events that are inherently indeterminate (through probabilistic determinism), and that these caused events are not determined but random (within their probability function)"
Just to go back only a few pages.

So please stop with the trolling, because that is all you seem to be doing now.

Here's where you said it. You simply can't deny you claimed probabilistic functions meant outputs were determined:

QQ: Probabilistic Determinism is about as contradictory as anything else.

Sarkus: No it's not.

Determinism is the philosophy that states for a given input you get a single output, and the output is exactly the same every time you use exactly the same input.

Probabilistic determinism is the philosophy that says for a given input you get a single probability function of output, and that the probability function is the same every time you use exactly the same input.

For example, if a coin toss was deterministic then, if you start with exactly the same starting conditions then you would always get the same result.

But if it is probabilistically deterministic then if you start with exactly the same conditions then you would always end up with the same distribution of outputs (e.g. One starting condition may lead to a 10:90 split of Heads and Tails, another starting condition might lead to 70:30) but for each starting condition there is a single probability function that describes the possible outputs.

The issue is when you try to establish determinism through practical means, as it is probably impossible at a practical level to ever have the same starting conditions. But this does not make the situation indeterministic, philosophically speaking. It just puts a practical limitation on testing for it.

See the trouble is that you contradict yourself so often, at one point saying probability functions mean that events are NOT indeterminate, when you yourself earlier state that probabilities mean events ARE indeterminate, that you actually forget what you have said. I seriously don't think you have a clear position at all on this issue philosophically speaking. That's why trying to hold you to your own statements is like going in circles, where you jump back and forth in the ambivalent space opened up between your contradictory terms and premises. Tell ya what. Take some time out to find out what you really believe and get back with me. Don't waste my time with circular arguments, unfounded premises, updated statements, and contradictory definitions. You're a living demonstration of someone living inside an illusion: the illusion that freewill is an illusion.

 

[Magical Realist]

For the last time: the activity remains the same regardless of whether illusion is real or not. The interpretation of that activity is where any difference may lie (i.e. whether it is merely part of a causal chain or whether it is the initiator etc) but in both cases we will perceive it as the same.

No it doesn't. Once again, a mere illusion of deciding to move my hand wouldn't cause my hand to move. That's why we would call it an illusion...duh!

Noone disputes that if I choose to raise my hand that I can raise my hand. That has never been in question. The neurological activity is there.

Then why have you consistently claimed that my choice to move my hand actually raising my hand is an illusion. Your whole argument has been framed around this impossibility of ourselves, or our wills, being the initiator of our actions. That this is only an illusion. IOW, that we are not REALLY the initiator of our actions. That other hidden causes initiate action. Are you now denying all this, that choosing to raise my hand really DOES raise my hand?

It is what causes this decision in the first instance that is the issue. It is the perception of freewill (that it initiates the activity) that is the illusion, when the reality (per the argument) is that it is caused, and at no point can there be an agent that is both uncaused and non-random, which would be required for freewill because every other agent behaves either deterministically or randomly (within the probability function).

I already pointed out the flaw in that premise: every event that is caused also causes. Hence to the extent that freewill is a caused event does not entail that it cannot cause. Neither does the fact that freewill initiates causes entail that it must be uncaused. We simply have no examples in our experience of a caused event that doesn't cause, or of a causing event that is uncaused. This has already been pointed out to you repeatedly. I guess you forgot.

 

[Sarkus]

Here's where you said it. You simply can't deny you claimed probabilistic functions meant outputs were determined:

Where in any of the above have I said that probability functions meant outputs were determined?
Where in any of the above can it be even concluded from what I have said in what you quoted?

I can not be held responsible for you continually misunderstanding the terms being used once I have at least explained how I am using them.

See the trouble is that you contradict yourself so often, at one point saying probability functions mean that events are NOT indeterminate,

WHERE? Quote where I have said this, where I have contradicted myself in this way. Either post it or stop trolling.

I seriously don't think you have a clear position at all on this issue philosophically speaking. That's why trying to hold you to your own statements is like going in circles, where you jump back and forth in the ambivalent space opened up between your contradictory terms and premises. Tell ya what. Take some time out to find out what you really believe and get back with me. Don't waste my time with circular arguments, unfounded premises, updated statements, and contradictory definitions. You're a living demonstration of someone living inside an illusion: the illusion that freewill is an illusion.

Please stop trolling, MR.

 

[Magical Realist]

So please stop with the trolling, because that is all you seem to be doing now.

LOL! If I'm really trolling, then report me and let the mods decide. (gawd I pity the mod who would have to go thru the rigamarole of this thread trying to determine that!)

 

[Magical Realist]

Where in any of the above have I said that probability functions meant outputs were determined?
Where in any of the above can it be even concluded from what I have said in what you quoted?

I can not be held responsible for you continually misunderstanding the terms being used once I have at least explained how I am using them.
WHERE? Quote where I have said this, where I have contradicted myself in this way. Either post it or stop trolling.
Please stop trolling, MR.

"Where?" "Who?" "When?" lol! You're as clueless as you've always been. Don't waste my time anymore..