Free Will, Where Does It Come From? - Page 3

Ramo · January 27, 2004, 18:15

Are you saying that consciousness can't arise out of the physical laws?

Whaleboy · January 27, 2004, 18:48

Quote:

Are you saying that consciousness can't arise out of the physical laws?

Clearly ridiculous. The only thing that we are perplexed about by consciousness is that we are it! Its the only level we cannot really be introspective about, but that doesn't stop us from at least trying to be objective...

Rogan Josh · January 27, 2004, 19:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Ramo
Are you saying that consciousness can't arise out of the physical laws?

Yes

Ramo · January 27, 2004, 19:22

Why? I agree that free-will is supernatural, but I don't see why consciousness (by which, I mean the capacity to have abstract thought) should be.

Kuciwalker · January 27, 2004, 19:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Park Avenue
That sounds strictly deterministic, a notion that quantum experiments have thrown in the bin.

I'd say a probabilistic universe REALLY has no place for free will....

Rogan Josh · January 27, 2004, 19:54

So how do you define consciousness then? I would have said they are the same thing (free-will and consciousness) - even the act of observation implies free-will to 'understand' the observations.

Ramo · January 27, 2004, 19:59

Consciousness, as I definie it, is the capacity to produce abstract thought. Free-will is a nonphysical influence on one's actions. I would not say they are the same thing as I see no reason why the capacity to produce abstract thought should be supernatural.

Berzerker · January 27, 2004, 22:12

This has turned into a debate over whether or not we have free will in the sense biology has no say in our actions. That isn't free will... Free will is the notion that you're free (or should be)to make choices about how you live your life - free from others who may want to make your choices for you, not free from biology (like death) or the laws of physics.

Drogue · January 28, 2004, 05:27

Berz: Free Will is the idea that you can change your future. That your future is not decided, because there is still a chance you could choose one action, or a chance you could choose another. I agree that we can choose our own choice. I agree that we are free from others who want to make choices for us (to some extent). However while we can choose, what we will choose is already known. We cannot change the future, since our actions will be what our actions will be. That is why I don't believe in parallel/alternate universes, because there is only one way things can happen, the way that they will do. The future is as solid as the past. Admittedly we cannot know what it is, but it is a static object, in that it doesn't change.

Solly · January 28, 2004, 05:30

Drogue, I'm sure there is a flaw there. How do you know there is only one future?

"I'd say a probabilistic universe REALLY has no place for free will...."

Explain.

Kramerman · January 28, 2004, 06:03

pfff, free will quite clearly comes from god

Drogue · January 28, 2004, 06:47

PA: Because if you had everything being exactly the same, everything in the same position, then everything would do the same.

Imagine you have two identical worlds, like ours, right now. They are independant of each other. Starting from exactly the same point. If anything were random, there would beall but an infinitessimally small chance that they would do different things, that they would be different. That infinitessimally small chance is the chance that the random variable is exactly the same each time. If that random variable is exactly the same, they would both remain identical. However there is no random variable. Randomness does not exist. It is chaotic. The only difference that causes, is that, being that they are identical in every way, and they start from the same point, they will both remain identical. For them to be different, there would either need to be a difference at the start, or a difference in their evolution. The former we have stated there isn't, they start identical. The latter, since it is chaotic, and starting identically, cannot happen either. For their evolution to be different, there would need to be a random variable.

It does not matter if there are two or two billion. If they start from exactly the same point, they would all remain identical, and they would evolve identicaly. However many of them there were, they would all be the same, because they cannot evolve any differently. All the possibly worlds, starting from our starting point, would have the same future. It is not possible for two worlds, given exactly the same starting point, and independance, to have a different future from each other. Therefore, from our strating point, there is only one possible future. The one that will happen.

Berzerker · January 28, 2004, 06:52

Drogue - You want to debate biology and "free will", not me. That's just mental masturbation since we don't know. Free will is not about whether or not biology determines our behavior, it's what I said it is.

Quote:

Berz: Free Will is the idea that you can change your future.

I'm changing my future, cya

Drogue · January 28, 2004, 07:13

Berz: the point I was making is that we do know. Experiments on AI and artificial biology have shown this, as does logic, IMHO.

What you describe is not free will, it is the lack of impediments, of obstacles, to your choices. It is in having more choice. Free will is whether you actually have a choice or not. And since it is known what you will choose, IMHO, you do not.

I'm not talking about how biology determins your behaviour. I'm talking about how that choice you make is already known, and that the future is already inclusive of that. I'm saying that you do not have the free will to choose differently than you will do. The future is not ours to change, it is already decided.

Rogan Josh · January 28, 2004, 08:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Ramo
Consciousness, as I definie it, is the capacity to produce abstract thought. Free-will is a nonphysical influence on one's actions. I would not say they are the same thing as I see no reason why the capacity to produce abstract thought should be supernatural.

But how can one 'reason' without free-will? 'Reason' implies a process over which one has control. If your reasoning is predetermined by physical law then it is not reasoning at all, but algorithm.

Would you say that a computer which is sophisticated enough to appear intelligent to a human observer has consciousness?

Kuciwalker · January 28, 2004, 09:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Drogue
Berz: Free Will is the idea that you can change your future. That your future is not decided, because there is still a chance you could choose one action, or a chance you could choose another. I agree that we can choose our own choice. I agree that we are free from others who want to make choices for us (to some extent). However while we can choose, what we will choose is already known. We cannot change the future, since our actions will be what our actions will be. That is why I don't believe in parallel/alternate universes, because there is only one way things can happen, the way that they will do. The future is as solid as the past. Admittedly we cannot know what it is, but it is a static object, in that it doesn't change.

No, free will is NOT that. Free will is the power to make your own decisions, without someone else making them for you.

BeBro · January 28, 2004, 10:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Drogue
I'm not talking about how biology determins your behaviour. I'm talking about how that choice you make is already known, and that the future is already inclusive of that. I'm saying that you do not have the free will to choose differently than you will do. The future is not ours to change, it is already decided.

But you're saying it as if it is a proven fact that there's no free will - AFAIK it is not so far, not even in neurobiology (yes, I may be wrong, but what I read in thread so far wasn't the exactly what I'd call ultimate proof pro or contra free will

).

To the consciousness thing: I read a (philosophical)argument against the "pure physics rule" position that says, even when you know everything you can know about the brain and its function due to physics and neurobiology, you cannot describe physically why we have subjective impressions due to our senses and how they are - subjectively - experienced.

Drogue · January 28, 2004, 10:27

I'm more saying that there is determinism, as opposed to their not being free will. IMHO, the fact that the choices you make are known removes that aspect of free will, but I do believe you make those decisions.

Solly · January 28, 2004, 10:53

Drogue

Quote:

Because if you had everything being exactly the same, everything in the same position, then everything would do the same.

Given two identical quantum experiments, you can get two different outcomes. Can you explain why.

Drogue · January 28, 2004, 11:19

Because they're not identical. There are minutely differences. Even differences as small as a change in the magnetic field, or the different position of the sun are enough. For it to be exactly the same, it would need to be in exactly the same place, at exactly the same point in time. That is impossible, hence the different result.

There is not such thing as an identical quantum experiment, because it is chaotic. Hence the differences, from any minute difference (such as those mentioned above) could produce huge differences in outcome.

BeBro · January 28, 2004, 11:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Drogue
I'm more saying that there is determinism, as opposed to their not being free will. IMHO, the fact that the choices you make are known removes that aspect of free will, but I do believe you make those decisions.

I have trouble to understand what you mean: when you are saying the future is already decided you are ruling out that a free will can exist. Do you mean we make decisions, believing that we are free to make them, but the outcome is always determined before (so, that in fact, as some say, our free will is just an illusion)?

Solly · January 28, 2004, 11:25

"Because they're not identical. There are minutely differences. Even differences as small as a change in the magnetic field, or the different position of the sun are enough. For it to be exactly the same, it would need to be in exactly the same place, at exactly the same point in time. That is impossible, hence the different result."

Have you read much about the quantum world?

Solly · January 28, 2004, 11:28

Fundamental to contemporary Quantum Theory is the notion that there is no phenomenon until it is observed. This effect is known as the 'Observer Effect'. 1

The implications of the 'Observer Effect' are profound because, if true, it means that before anything can manifest in the physical universe it must first be observed. Presumably observation cannot occur without the pre-existence of some sort of consciousness to do the observing. The Observer Effect clearly implies that the physical Universe is the direct result of 'consciousness'.

There is a delicious irony in all this. Contemporary Western scientific theory postulates that human consciousness is solely a result of the workings of a physical brain, yet if the observer effect is correct, the physical matter comprising a brain cannot come into existence until it is the subject of observation by some pre-existing consciousness.

http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/...ver_effect.htm

Drogue · January 28, 2004, 11:33

BeBro: Compatabalism
Free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive. People can believe in free will and determinism.

We are free to make decisions. We can choose what we want. However, what we will choose is already decided. Imagine you are put in a situation, in a time loop. Say you're deciding what to have for breakfast. You go over this situation multiple times, but you never know you are doing it again. You will always do exactly the same thing. You will always choose to eat the same thing, because each time, you are exactly the same person. Given exactly the same starting point, you will do exactly the same action. You are free to choose whatever option you wish, but you, being you, in exactly the same point in space and time, will always choose that option. In a different place in time, you may choose differently, but given exactly the same situation (I can't stress that enough, it doesn't mean the same experiment twice, it means in that individual, unrepeatable point in space and time) you will choose the same option.

You are free to choose, but that freedom is an illusion.

Drogue · January 28, 2004, 11:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Park Avenue
Have you read much about the quantum world?

Some. I wouldn't class myself as an expert, but I ave read some articles on it. Moreover, I would consider my dad partly an expert on it (his PhD was not in quantum physics, but he had a strong research interest in it), and I have discussed ideas on chaotic and complex systems with him.

With regards to the observer effect. It is just another way of putting the idea that if a tree falls in the woods, and no-one hears it, did it make a sound. I think a phenomenon can occur without being observed. If something needs to be observed before it can manifest itself in the physical world, then how can it? How can it be observed when it is not physical, so that it can be made physical? I never got the point of the observer effect. I don't believe there is a pre-existing conciousness, there is no evidence for that, nor does it seem to make sense, how something can be concious without a brain.

What I do know is that quantum experiments are chaotic. And that means that if nothing changes at all, in exactly the same position in space/time, the same thing will happen. That can obviously never happen in this universe, since time travel is impossible. However since there is no random variable, just chaotic systems that appear random, nothing different can happen.

Solly · January 28, 2004, 11:53

"Given exactly the same starting point, you will do exactly the same action"

I see exactly where you are coming from. Yours is a very classical version of events.

However...

"Quantum theory says that what happens to any individual photon is genuinely and inescapably unpredictable"
http://www.newscientist.com/hottopic...ebeginning.jsp

"IN the quantum world, measurements are what make things happen. When a measurement is made, one definite answer emerges from of a range of possibilities. Without measurements, evidently, the whole Universe would languish in a permanent fog of indeterminacy."
http://www.newscientist.com/hottopic...eadoralive.jsp

DO some reading then come back.

JimmyCracksCorn · January 28, 2004, 12:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Ramo
Consciousness, as I definie it, is the capacity to produce abstract thought. Free-will is a nonphysical influence on one's actions. I would not say they are the same thing as I see no reason why the capacity to produce abstract thought should be supernatural.

Neurobiologically, consciousness is the communication between the prefrontal cortex and the sensory cortex of the human brain. The prefrontal cortex is the newest part of the brain (evolutionarily speaking) and as far as we know is only present (at least at such a large size, maybe a small one in some other high primate) in humans.

Why bother to philosophize or get into quantum physics when the biology of the brain itself answers your question. Its all connections of cells that dictate our behavior, and we certainly do have free will, which is completely random, or as random as it could possibly be within our programming.

Think about it, for the vast vast majority of our evolution we were scavengers, and 4 million years ago we became hunter-gatherers with Australopithecus and we did that from then until only 11,000 years ago when the last cold period ended and the last of the big game died. We're designed to hunt and gather and free will is just the difference between us all reaching for the same fruit on the tree or us all focusing on something different and random.

There is nothing dictating our future, either actively or passively, except neurons and cells in each of our own heads.

Ben Kenobi · January 28, 2004, 12:40

Quote:

because each time, you are exactly the same person.

Unless you erase the memory, this will not be so.

Kuciwalker · January 28, 2004, 13:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Drogue
I'm more saying that there is determinism, as opposed to their not being free will. IMHO, the fact that the choices you make are known removes that aspect of free will, but I do believe you make those decisions.

I don't think that really works - since every part of the universe affects every other part of the universe (VERY minutely) to somehow predict, using a computer, the interactions of atoms within the human body, you would have to have a computer capable of storing and processing information about the entire universe. Such a computer would necessarily be AT LEAST as large as the universe itself. You might say the the universe itself is a computer to predict (or more precisely, "dict"

) the future of the universe.

Kuciwalker · January 28, 2004, 13:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Drogue
Because they're not identical. There are minutely differences. Even differences as small as a change in the magnetic field, or the different position of the sun are enough. For it to be exactly the same, it would need to be in exactly the same place, at exactly the same point in time. That is impossible, hence the different result.

There is not such thing as an identical quantum experiment, because it is chaotic. Hence the differences, from any minute difference (such as those mentioned above) could produce huge differences in outcome.

However, according to quantum theory (which actually IS supported by A LOT of evidence, despite your objections) , the universe is not deterministic, but probabilistic.