What is free will?

[iceaura]

If absolutely everything is predetermined, that includes the human, it includes the options he imagines, it includes the option that will be selected, the way it was selected, the reasoning for selecting it. Everything. Absolutely everything.

Yep. We stipulated to that long, long ago. That's how we dismissed the confusions of quantum amplification, etc.

The only freedom within that are trivial notions, such as the river running "freely" down stream, or the thermostat being free to switch on or off depending on what the inputs dictate.

They aren't necessarily trivial, is the contention. You need to defend that assumption - it isn't granted. The degrees of freedom involved in human decisions certainly don't look trivial.

There you go again assuming that Socrates is mortal to be an assumption.

You did not conclude that freedom meant the ability to abrogate natural law - you assumed it. Reread for yourself. It's your damn argument - although Baldee did at one point clarify things by explicitly including it in the premises, with your agreement.

I have not made any such definition such as "non-trivial" meaning supernatural.

You have. Many times. I keep reminding you of one or two of the times, so the absurdity of your denial will continue to be visible (you required different outcomes from identical inputs, for example). I merely provided you with the standard English term for the ability to violate natural law at will. You keep using "actual" and "genuine" and "non-trivial" and so forth.

You have consistently accused me of denying the capabilities. Those capabilities are the ability to imagine alternatives and to conclude from among them.

The capabilities we have in our example are the ability to stop and the ability to go, possessed simultaneously, one of which will be chosen based on the future color of the light.
Notice that no one's imagination - or even conscious awareness - is necessarily involved. That was handled earlier - most human decisions, even very complex ones, are not conscious ones. The capabilities are not necessarily "imagined", but can be observed - by outside observers, often, using standard lab techniques. They exist, actually and genuinely and regardless of whether the driver "imagines" them or not.
Imagination is not necessarily involved. That's why I posited such a very simple example, driver approaching traffic light with only two alternatives, decision often automatic reflex. Trying to keep things simple, see?

If any further conclusion flows from the universe being predetermined then they, too, are conclusions from the same assumption of a deterministic universe.

It didn't follow. That was the point. You needed the further assumption of required supernatural abilities - "supernatural" being the standard English term for abilities that violate natural law - to get from "driver must do as the universe determines" to "driver has no freedom of will". If your concept of freedom does not require the ability to abrogate natural law, you can't conclude anything about it from determination by natural law.

So rather than move on to something else you want to discuss on these forums, or perhaps set up a thread specific to the discussion of the trivial freedom within our "free will", you continue responding here with your same misunderstanding.

The title of this thread is "What is free will".
With the results predicted from the very first pages of the earlier threads.
Lead the horse to water often enough, maybe it will drink.

 

[Write4U]

The title of this thread is "What is free will".
With the results predicted from the very first pages of the earlier threads.
Lead the horse to water often enough, maybe it will drink

One might add that the probability for that to happen is 100%, given sufficient time.

 

[Sarkus]

Yep. We stipulated to that long, long ago. That's how we dismissed the confusions of quantum amplification, etc.

You might want to mention that to others.

They aren't necessarily trivial, is the contention. You need to defend that assumption - it isn't granted. The degrees of freedom involved in human decisions certainly don't look trivial.

There is an astounding degree of freedom in human decisions, but it is the nature of that freedom that I and others consider trivial. And I have defended that. You may not consider it trivial, and hence your interest in it.

You did not conclude that freedom meant the ability to abrogate natural law - you assumed it. Reread for yourself. It's your damn argument - although Baldee did at one point clarify things by explicitly including it in the premises, with your agreement.

We've been through it in the other threads. It wasn't an assumption then and still isn't. At no point did ever use the word supernatural, or ever state that freedom is the ability to abrogate natural law. Nor do I recall baldeee ever including it explicitly within premises.
Further, this last claim by you very much suggests that you consider the "supernatural assumption" to be merely an implication... i.e. a conclusion that you have simply rolled into the actual premises. But either way, your assertions in this regard are irrelevant as they are erroneous.

The capabilities we have in our example are the ability to stop and the ability to go, possessed simultaneously, one of which will be chosen based on the future color of the light.

This is true only if by capability you mean the imagined ability to stop or go, or in other words the theoretical ability. There is no actual ability to do both things.

Also the future colour of the light is an already predetermined event. As such the action the driver takes is an already predetermined fact. As such there is no ability to do other than that predetermined course of events, and all we can do is imagine the capability of doing something else.

Notice that no one's imagination - or even conscious awareness - is necessarily involved.

If we're talking of the will then we're talking of conscious activity. As such imagination is there in every decision.

That was handled earlier - most human decisions, even very complex ones, are not conscious ones.

Then you're not talking of the will, and the analogy with the thermostat is even more apt.

The capabilities are not necessarily "imagined", but can be observed - by outside observers, often, using standard lab techniques. They exist, actually and genuinely and regardless of whether the driver "imagines" them or not.

No, they're not ever observed. We run the test once, you get an output to that test. There is no other actual alternative to what was done. No capability to do anything else. Provide me one test result that shows the capability to do both. We have an imagined capability by imagining whatever inputs we want and coming to different imagined outputs. But there is but a single predetermined input to each test, and just one predetermined output. Every other considered alternative is simply a counterfactual imagined alternative.

Imagination is not necessarily involved. That's why I posited such a very simple example, driver approaching traffic light with only two alternatives, decision often automatic reflex. Trying to keep things simple, see?

Then you're not talking about the will, and really are just talking about a thermostat.

It didn't follow.

It did, and still does. No need for any supernatural assumption. But you are welcome to conclude that for the notion of free to exist it needed to be supernatural. That is up to you.

The title of this thread is "What is free will".
With the results predicted from the very first pages of the earlier threads.
Lead the horse to water often enough, maybe it will drink.

Or maybe they prefer the liquid on offer at another trough? 'Cos I'm certainly not thirsty for what you're trying to lead to. Thermostat on. Thermostat off.

 

[Quantum Quack]

And what exactly do you mean or envisage by "co-determination"? Either everything is deterministic, or not everything is. Are you suggesting the human is a non-deterministic element in an otherwise deterministic universe? If not that, what are you suggesting?

It is fascinating how you can interpret co-determination as somehow non-deterministic....

The relationship between a human being and his universal environment is co-deterministic.
In the die example both the die and the human are in a co-deterministic relationship for with out the die there would be nothing to decide and with out the human to interfere there would be no change to the predetermination of the die.

I drew up the following image for the other thread but thought to post it it here as well seeing as words alone seem insufficient.


http://www.sciforums.com/threads/co-determinism-and-the-reality-of-free-will.161757/

 

[iceaura]

It did, and still does. No need for any supernatural assumption.

It does not. I'm sorry, but you simply need to think a bit here - it's completely obvious, right in front of you: you require, for freedom, the ability to generate different outcomes from identical and determinate inputs. That means violating natural law at will. That is what supernatural means, that is the only way to jump from "determined" to "not free" as you did, and that is what you have explicitly posted.

Provide me one test result that shows the capability to do both.

For the fifth time with this stupidity: Run the test several times, changing only the color of the light. Routine scientific procedure.

There is an astounding degree of freedom in human decisions, but it is the nature of that freedom that I and others consider trivial. And I have defended that.

You have not defended that dubious presumption. You're still stuck on thermostats - you have not even begun to describe the nature of the higher order degrees of freedom, and you show no sign of acknowledging the issues involved.

To do so would involve the discussion I have been inviting for many threads, months, and posts - you have explicitly refused, on the grounds of having infallibly presumed its triviality.

When you do, note that this triviality remains beyond the reach of mathematical description, or cause/effect analysis, so far. It definitely cannot be handled by the techniques employed in describing or analyzing thermostats. The closest approaches I know of are the latest AI machines, such as the Go players - and one of their notable features, despite their being at least one logical level simpler than human thinking and a human creation in the first place, is that getting them to work has meant giving up knowing how they work: nobody knows what they are thinking. People analyze their games as they analyze human games - only without being able to ask the player.

 

[Write4U]

For the fifth time with this stupidity: Run the test several times, changing only the color of the light. Routine scientific procedure.

Question: are you saying that repeating the test by changing the light a thousand times, somewhere along the line a human is able to break the deterministic chain in a non-trivial way when responding each time to those changes?

 

[iceaura]

If we're talking of the will then we're talking of conscious activity.

That is false.

Also the future colour of the light is an already predetermined event. As such the action the driver takes is an already predetermined fact.

By the universe, not the driver. The free will of the universe is not the topic here.

As such there is no ability to do other than that predetermined course of events, and all we can do is imagine the capability of doing something else.

Nonsense. The actual capabilities - both of them - were built into the driver, the possible colors of the light had been built into the light. That is what happened. That is how the universe determined this event. This is observed physical reality.

 

[iceaura]

Question: are you saying that repeating the test by changing the light a thousand times, somewhere along the line a human is able to break the deterministic chain in a non-trivial way when responding each time to those changes?

The supernatural assumption is crippling. Seriously.

 

[Sarkus]

It is fascinating how you can interpret co-determination as somehow non-deterministic....

If it is deterministic then you are simply referring to a deterministic universe, where all is deterministic. Adding in the human as something to be considered seaparately is an irrelevancy. Either the universe is deterministic, or it is non-deterministic.

The relationship between a human being and his universal environment is co-deterministic.

Now you just have the simple task of explaining what you mean by "co-deterministic" that isn't covered by the term "deterministic".

In the die example both the die and the human are in a co-deterministic relationship for with out the die there would be nothing to decide and with out the human to interfere there would be no change to the predetermination of the die.

First, all you seem to be doing is taking elements of a system and calling those separate elements co-deterministic, because they are both involved in the overall system that generates the outcome. Doing so is an irrelevancy, and adds nothing to our understanding.
Second, there is no "change to the predetermination" of anything. That's what it means to be predetermined - already set in stone and unchanging.

 

[Capracus]

By the universe, not the driver. The free will of the universe is not the topic here.

What you keep failing to acknowledge is that the driver and the universe are part of the same system. Predetermined for the universe means the same for every thing within it, which translates to no free will for anything.

 

[Sarkus]

It does not. I'm sorry, but you simply need to think a bit here - it's completely obvious, right in front of you: you require, for freedom, the ability to generate different outcomes from identical and determinate inputs. That means violating natural law at will. That is what supernatural means, that is the only way to jump from "determined" to "not free" as you did, and that is what you have explicitly posted.

Not determinate inputs, just identical inputs. Nowhere has freedom been defined as you have done so here. It is the assumption of determinism that describes those inputs as determinate. Otherwise what you have put here is an argument that quite clearly concludes that freedom can not exist in a deterministic universe. And for you to think that the assumption is that freedom is supernatural is to think that one assumes up front that Socrates is mortal.
So it is you who needs to think a bit.

For the fifth time with this stupidity: Run the test several times, changing only the color of the light. Routine scientific procedure.

And where within that is supposed to be a demonstration of the capability to do both? What you're showing is the capability for different outputs based on different inputs. Thermostat on. Thermostat off. Within each run there is no ability to do anything other than the input and the system allows. No ability in each run to do both. Each run is not the same test but a different test of a different system with different inputs. Trivial. So no, there is no demonstration of the capability you assert, of possessing the ability simultaneously. The system can only ever do one thing, and that one thing is determined by the inputs and the deterministic workings of the system. No ability to do anything other than one thing.
So please, offer something else if you can.

You have not defended that dubious presumption. You're still stuck on thermostats - you have not even begun to describe the nature of the higher order degrees of freedom, and you show no sign of acknowledging the issues involved.

Yet everything you offer by way of example can be witnessed within a thermostat, other than the imagining of alternatives. Different inputs, different outputs. Thermostat on. Thermostat off.

To do so would involve the discussion I have been inviting for many threads, months, and posts - you have explicitly refused, on the grounds of having infallibly presumed its triviality.

Referring to it as trivial is merely my, and other's, opinion. Opinions are not infallible. But you can show how it is not trivial, how the freedom you're talking about is not, in principle, also witnessed within a thermostat, then it remains my opinion.

When you do, note that this triviality remains beyond the reach of mathematical description, or cause/effect analysis, so far. It definitely cannot be handled by the techniques employed in describing or analyzing thermostats. The closest approaches I know of are the latest AI machines, such as the Go players - and one of their notable features, despite their being at least one logical level simpler than human thinking and a human creation in the first place, is that getting them to work has meant giving up knowing how they work: nobody knows what they are thinking. People analyze their games as they analyze human games - only without being able to ask the player.

You're appealing to the complexity of the system as being non-trivial, not the notion of freedom that I am opining to be trivial. Please don't confuse the two. The discussion of freewill, at least from my perspective, is about the nature of the freedom within the system, not the complexity of that system itself.

 

[Sarkus]

That is false.

How so? Can you give me an example of freewill being an unconscious act that is anything more in principle than a thermostat reacting to its environment?
[/quote]By the universe, not the driver. The free will of the universe is not the topic here.[/quote]But it is part of the system under consideration, irrespective of what has predetermined it. And if anything is predetermined then it is predetermined. Period. To consider/imagine alternatives is to consider counterfactual alternatives to what has been predetermined.

Nonsense. The actual capabilities - both of them - were built into the driver, the possible colors of the light had been built into the light. That is what happened. That is how the universe determined this event. This is observed physical reality.

The universe also predetermined what colour light would show, and how the driver would react. What you are referring to is simply counterfactual capabilities, not capabilities relating to the actual test as it was run.
Sure, you can run another test and have different inputs and get different outputs, but there would still be no demonstrated capability to do anything different within that run.

But if you see that as freedom... thermostat off, thermostat on. Trivial.

 

[Quantum Quack]

If it is deterministic then you are simply referring to a deterministic universe, where all is deterministic. Adding in the human as something to be considered seaparately is an irrelevancy. Either the universe is deterministic, or it is non-deterministic.

Why do you think that it is irrelevant?
I consider it to be profoundly important.

Now you just have the simple task of explaining what you mean by "co-deterministic" that isn't covered by the term "deterministic".

I have already done so here and in the other thread located at:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/co-determinism-and-the-reality-of-free-will.161757/

it appears you are happy about claiming self determinism as being an illusion but I find that solution to be a cop out from actually dealing with the hard issue of freewill. There is ample evidence of self determination and simply calling it an illusion just doesn't cut it.

If every event is predetermined including any choices and alternative choices then the notion of a singular choice being somehow special is illogical.

like
2+8 = 10'
3+7 = 10''
2+8+5-7+2=10'''
regardless, the same predetermination is evident.
Every alternative choice is a 10

Is the above too complex for you? Do I need to explain it in more detail?
It isn't easy to get across when someone appears to be so determined to deny any alternatives but hey, you can't say I didn't try.

 

[Sarkus]

Why do you think that it is irrelevant?
I consider it to be profoundly important.

I have no doubt that you do think it important. But since the system is deterministic, it is sufficient to consider just that to show that freewill only contains (in my opinion) trivial notions of freedom, in principle the same freedoms that a correctly-working thermostat has.
Adding in a deterministic sub-system for consideration adds nothing to our understanding.

I have already done so here...

Where? Please can you point me to the post number? Although if it is anything like the explanation in the thread you linked to then it doesn't actually explain anything.
So please, in as simplistic a way as possible, what do you mean by "co-determination"?

it appears you are happy about claiming self determinism as being an illusion but I find that solution to be a cop out from actually dealing with the hard issue of freewill. There is ample evidence of self determination and simply calling it an illusion just doesn't cut it.

Now you'll have to define what you mean by self-determination within the realm of philosophy, as the more you use it the more you're just equivocating between philosophical terms (determinism) and sociological terms (self determinism)?

If every event is predetermined including any choices and alternative choices then the notion of a singular choice being somehow special is illogical.

Eh? Not every choice is special. But we can still only choose one outcome. That is how physics works.

like
2+8 = 10
3+7 = 10
2+8+5-7+2=10
regardless the same predetermination is evident.
Every alternative choice is a 10

Sure, but if asked to make a choice, you can still only pick one outcome.

Is the above too complex for you? Do I need to explain it in more detail?

There may well be a difference between what you have explained and what you intended to explain, but I have understood what you have explained.

It isn't easy to get across when someone appears to have blinded themselves to alternatives but hey, you can't say I didn't try.

It isn't easy for you to get things across to other people when you clearly don't have a sufficient understanding of the principles you wish to evoke. You basically just throw words into the air and hope others can make sense of it for you. I'm sure that's not what you intend but it is how it comes across. I don't want to dismiss out of hand what you say as being "word salad", so I try my best to understand and interpret. But you don't make it easy.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Sure, but if asked to make a choice, you can still only pick one outcome.

I don't even need to bring the issue of self determination into the discussion to show that freewill is actually IRRELEVANT to the universal determinism.
It is of no consequence to have freewill as absolutely all Choices and their outcomes are predetermined.
If every alternative choice is predetermined then the human is free to choose anything that he believes will determine the most benefit for himself. Thus he becomes self determined by default.

Gotta remember it is the human who has the power to choose what benefits him and not the universe....

 

[Quantum Quack]

I wrote this little short story for the other thread last night as a way of explaining co-determination in gedanken style. I'll post it here for your solutions to the questions asked at the end.
====

The reluctant Messiah

Captain Quirky Quale knew when he signed up for this mission that it was suicidal. He knew that there was no option other than the one fate had chosen. That he would be the only one to have a choice.

Coasting next to a massive asteroid in the Starship UNS Determination he was only moments away from completing his desperate mission.

The scientists were absolutely sure that this Asteroid knocked out of it's field some 1.6 billion light years ago was vectored to destroy itself in Humanities life source star, Sol.



The scientist also knew with absolute certainty that when the asteroid named "Freewill 101" finally ended it's 1.6 billion year journey by exploding in the sun that it would generate what was called a Barylium Time Anomaly, that would immediately wipe out our entire solar system, the milky way galaxy and eventually with in an estimated 60 minutes or so the entire universe.

His mission was simple, Save humanity, save the world and save the universe but to do so he has to die as his star ship was a flying bomb. He was like a suicide bomber with a vest loaded with 300 massive nuclear war heads.

Any how to cut a short story even shorter, Captain Quirky, stood alone on the bridge with his finger poised on a button that would start the interception ( * co-determination) and be completed in less than 30 seconds.

He knew he still had a choice, even with what was at stake. He had just got off the net talking to his estranged family and a couple of sort of friends and suffered some crazy bullying from people to his Twitter feed.
He wasn't sure humanity was worth saving and the BS he had to put up with, made him hesitate in his final decision.
He was dead either way but all he could think of were the bullies worth saving?

He could kick back and watch the asteroid plummet into the sun and watch the end of the universe form in a fit of sad revenge or he could do what he volunteered to do.

He had the power over life and death of billions in his hands and all he could think about were the jokers BS on his Twitter feed.

The universe had determined the trajectory of the Asteroid. It's ultimate end predetermined to be engulfed in a star called Sol. It was now up to Capt Quircky to either allow that pre-determination to continue or co-determine the asteroids fate.​

Questions for the Determinist folk.

The very universe that according to determinism is in control has now got to deal with it's own possible extinction.

1. If Quirky chooses to save the universe is that a predetermined choice?
2. If he chooses to kick back and say bugger it and enjoy the fireworks is that a predetermined choice?
3. Who has the choice, the universe or Quirky Quale captain of the Star ship UNS determination
4. Or are both alternatives predetermined and awaiting co-determination?
5. Either way he dies. Is it his choice how he dies determined by the universe or himself?

 

[Capracus]

Gotta remember it is the human who has the power to choose what benefits him and not the universe....

You can’t separate the two in regards to determinism. Humans are a subset of the universe, and the universe as a whole determines what happens to itself and its constituent elements. The exemption you propose has no basis in fact.

 

[Quantum Quack]

You can’t separate the two in regards to determinism. Humans are a subset of the universe, and the universe as a whole determines what happens to itself and its constituent elements. The exemption you propose has no basis in fact.

maybe answer the questions at the bottom of my "flight of fancy" gedanken (post#498) and work it out for yourself...

 

[Capracus]

You have no logical reason to separate a determined universe from human existence, you're just culturally conditioned to expect that there should be, just like a theist's belief in the divine.

 

[Sarkus]

It is of no consequence to have freewill as absolutely all Choices and their outcomes are predetermined.

The choices we think we are making make still have to be processed. There is just no (non-trivial) freedom involved.

If every alternative choice is predetermined then the human is free to choose anything that he believes will determine the most benefit for himself. Thus he becomes self determined by default.

What he believes is predetermined. The way he assess the imagined alternatives is predetermined. The output he ultimately arrives at is similarly predetermined.

Gotta remember it is the human who has the power to choose what benefits him and not the universe....

The human is not separate from the universe, but a part of it. If you want to consider the human a deterministic system in its own right then the inputs to that system are still predetermined by the rest of the universe. The human can not determine its own inputs. Being deterministic, the human will thus output a predetermined result from the predetermined inputs. If you see that as "power to choose" then so be it.