Free Will, Where Does It Come From?

[Oncle Boris]

It is indeed possible that we might never prove we live in a deterministic world.

Kant uses a very simple argument on this: in practice, you cannot act if you don't believe to have 'free will'- because sitting down and waiting for an impulse will never urge you to do something.

As Strangelove implies, the functioning of the brain is so complex that the only determinism could be found at the atom level, but not on biological grounds.

[Solly]

Dr Strangelove

Interesting about the cat. Electrical impulses or whatever may govern our actions, but no-one is claiming in defence of free will that electricity (or whatever) is unimportant. With free will, it is our spontaneous freedom that perhaps creates the electric current in order for a response.

Someone else may argue that once we reach such a level of understanding we will find that the human mind in all it's complexity, and working upon the basis of the subjective-objective reciprocal duality, creates in itself an entity that is original and integral above it's environment and thus exhibits "free will".

I don't see how acausality can come from a deterministic view. Additionally, there are other complex systems, far more complex than the brain. Consider for an example for trillions of particles involved in weather patterns. Do you assume consciousness in a storm because of its complexity?

The more I think about this, the more sure I seem to become that panpsychism is going down the correct route - that everything has some form of rudimentary self-awareness.

Free will is connected with quantum levels of physics - effectively, when the wavefunction is collapsed, quantum particles have the option of "where to be". Only they themselves know, and it's a private decision. A very good metaphor with human behaviour and how feelings like pain are private - the outside universe doesn't know them. That the outside universe is unaware of what we are feeling is an amazing thought - and completely puts paid to determinism (if it hasn't been counted out already). If only "I" know what I am thinking and feeling, the outside world must wait for me to act before it can know how to respond.

This may sound a bit jumbled, and to be honest I haven't had time to formulate a sound, logical process for explaining it.

I believe free will comes in when there is an absence of physical laws to actually force our behaviour - there are apparently no laws forcing very small particles to behave one way or other. So they have the freedom - spontaneous freedom - to choose. They have free will, as do we.

[Solly]

It's fascinating thinking about this. If you continue down the route that free will/consciousness appears when there is a lack of physical laws to govern particles, it can be argued that the creation of the universe was a conscious event as there may/must have been no rules in operation then. A kind of God?

[Oncle Boris]

Actually Park, I don't remember who said it in the thread, but I have a firm belief that physically identical humans would react in the same way to the same stimulus.

In a normal scheme, it might be impossible to prove it, but once science allows us to make the 'brain in the vat' experiment, we might get a better understanding.

[Solly]

"Actually Park, I don't remember who said it in the thread, but I have a firm belief that physically identical humans would react in the same way to the same stimulus."

Why would they, when physically identical systems have reacted differently in experiments?

[Oncle Boris]

[SIZE=1]
Why would they, when physically identical systems have reacted differently in experiments?

I'm talking about the human brain here, not physical systems. You will agree that the inner workings of a mammal's brain are probably unique in what we know of the world right now.

[Solly]

"You will agree that the inner workings of a mammal's brain are probably unique in what we know of the world right now."

Hmm. Unique in what way?

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
"You will agree that the inner workings of a mammal's brain are probably unique in what we know of the world right now."

Hmm. Unique in what way?

I mean in the additional layer of complexity created by biological functions. I'm not a science expert, but it seems to me the relationship between brain molecules has something more than the relationship of H2O or COOH molecules.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
Dr Strangelove

Interesting about the cat.

Yeah, but now my wife won't let us get another cat. D**n it!

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
Dr Strangelove

I don't see how acausality can come from a deterministic view. Additionally, there are other complex systems, far more complex than the brain. Consider for an example for trillions of particles involved in weather patterns. Do you assume consciousness in a storm because of its complexity?

In the brain each neuron acts as a "decision point". In the atmosphere the molecules of nitrogen, oxygen, and carbon dioxide don't react individually in a way that contributes to the dynamics of the weather, which is largely governed by forces much greater than those that act at the molecular level.

The more I think about this, the more sure I seem to become that panpsychism is going down the correct route - that everything has some form of rudimentary self-awareness.

Free will is connected with quantum levels of physics - effectively, when the wavefunction is collapsed, quantum particles have the option of "where to be". Only they themselves know, and it's a private decision. A very good metaphor with human behaviour and how feelings like pain are private - the outside universe doesn't know them. That the outside universe is unaware of what we are feeling is an amazing thought - and completely puts paid to determinism (if it hasn't been counted out already). If only "I" know what I am thinking and feeling, the outside world must wait for me to act before it can know how to respond.

This may sound a bit jumbled, and to be honest I haven't had time to formulate a sound, logical process for explaining it.

I believe free will comes in when there is an absence of physical laws to actually force our behaviour - there are apparently no laws forcing very small particles to behave one way or other. So they have the freedom - spontaneous freedom - to choose. They have free will, as do we.

You've got a lot of work left ahead of you if you're going to develop these ideas!

[Odin]

By what I know about the brain I think free will is the abillity of the prefrontal cotex to regulate signals from other parts of the brain (hence the readiness potential) using information from memory sent from the thalamus. When we think about a problem the prefrontal cortex cycles through memories and when it finds the right memory, like that 2+2=4, the impulse to write the number is released. The prefrontal cortex going through memory is what causes the readiness potenial, I think. So we don't exactly have a free will, but we do have a veto, a free "won't", so to speak. That is why people with ADHD, like me, are somewhat impulsive, our prefrontal cortex is not properly developed. There is also evidence that serial killers tend to have a damaged prefrontal cortex, so that there is a possibility that serial crime is a brain disorder!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
It may not be a probabilistic or deterministic universe in our senses of the world. Some sort of non-algorithmic thing.

There isn't anything BUT probabilistic and deterministic. Either the universe obeys rules, or it doesn't. It can't both not obey rules AND not not obey rules.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
It is indeed possible that we might never prove we live in a deterministic world.

More than that, it is logically IMPOSSIBLE to prove that we live in a deterministic world, or more precisely, to prove causation.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
I'm talking about the human brain here, not physical systems. You will agree that the inner workings of a mammal's brain are probably unique in what we know of the world right now.

wrt physical laws, there isn't anything particularly unique about the electrons and quarks in your brain as opposed to the electrons and quarks in the air.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
I mean in the additional layer of complexity created by biological functions. I'm not a science expert, but it seems to me the relationship between brain molecules has something more than the relationship of H2O or COOH molecules.

Why?

[Solly]

That we live in a somewhat acausal, non-deterministic universe is proved by the fact it is here at all?

[Solly]

Dr Strangelove

"You've got a lot of work left ahead of you if you're going to develop these ideas"

Yes, I agree. It's funny how our minds can be so sure of an idea, and others are not.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
That we live in a somewhat acausal, non-deterministic universe is proved by the fact it is here at all?

Huh?

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by skywalker
There isn't anything BUT probabilistic and deterministic. Either the universe obeys rules, or it doesn't. It can't both not obey rules AND not not obey rules.

That isn't what he was meaning. By 'probabalistic' PA was maening that events happen with determined probabilities (like quantum mechanics), whereas 'deterministic' is a fixed outcome for a fixed set of initial conditions. Both of these are simply obeying physical rules, and bot of these systems preclude free-will.

Physics has already shown (to very good certainty) that the universe is not deterministic and that the rules governing the universe appear probabilistic. But since we haven't looked at everything, there is no need to assume that everything obeys physical rules.

[Dr Strangelove]

Just because quantum mechanics is probabalistic does not mean that it is acausal. Furthermore the reactions that govern the function of the brain occur at the molecular level and therefore quantum mechanics doesn't apply.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Just because quantum mechanics is probabalistic does not mean that it is acausal.

Exactly!

Furthermore the reactions that govern the function of the brain occur at the molecular level and therefore quantum mechanics doesn't apply.

Quatum machanics does still apply. QM (or rather Quantum Field Theory, which is QM's generalisation) applies at all energy scales, even macroscopic ones. In principle one should be able to use QM to describe the dynamics of everyday objects - it is just that the maths of the problem would be horrendously difficult - but it is possible in principle.

We don't have a quantum theory of gravity yet (that works) but once we do, it should be able to [in principle] predict the motions of stars and planets etc, even though these are in the Newtonian regime.

So if the fundamental laws are deterministic then everything is deterministic.

[Solly]

Dr Strangelove

Just because quantum mechanics is probabalistic does not mean that it is acausal.

Hmm, care to explain?

Skywalker

Huh?

The universe can't be completely causal, as that would surely mean it wouldn't be here. If you track back, something has to have happened without a cause.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Park Avenue

The universe can't be completely causal, as that would surely mean it wouldn't be here. If you track back, something has to have happened without a cause.

Yes, but the *something* can be outside. Therefore, the universe based on the fundamental laws would be completely causal, that is it would be a machine the production of which is described in the fundamentals laws. According to this, life is a very minor effect of the fundamental laws, so small that it was not taken into consideration when the machine was designed. As a result, life would not be tied by causality, but the free will, although existing, would have not effect on the outcome.

[Kramerman]

this is starting to sound like the matrix reloaded

[Elok]

Originally posted by Kramerman
this is starting to sound like the matrix reloaded

I won't be scared until it starts sounding like the matrix revolutions. My life has enough forced overemoting and tepid, gratuitous confrontation as it is. It is, however, sadly lacking in cool car chases.

[Solly]

Yes, but the *something* can be outside.

By definition, nothing lies outside the universe, right..?

[Dr Strangelove]

Deus Ex Machina?

[Solly]

Huh?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh


That isn't what he was meaning. By 'probabalistic' PA was maening that events happen with determined probabilities (like quantum mechanics), whereas 'deterministic' is a fixed outcome for a fixed set of initial conditions. Both of these are simply obeying physical rules, and bot of these systems preclude free-will.

Physics has already shown (to very good certainty) that the universe is not deterministic and that the rules governing the universe appear probabilistic. But since we haven't looked at everything, there is no need to assume that everything obeys physical rules.

If there are no rules, the universe is STILL probabilistic - just everything has an equal chance of happening.

Actually, come to think of it, the universe is probabilistic no matter what - "deterministic" is just a subset where all of the probabilities are either 0 or 1.

[Kuciwalker]

The universe can't be completely causal, as that would surely mean it wouldn't be here. If you track back, something has to have happened without a cause.

Or the universe could have existed forever...