Free will or "free will"?

Ayya I was asking if you'd offer your brain up to be damaged knowing that you would remain you as you were before brain damage

edit: people are declared dead well before they are actually dead,they're just really unlikely to survive at that point, shit is still happening for 'em

I think it's important to distinguish our sense of self not just as a conceptual idea, but as a by-product of a large and complex framework. The reference of self occurs at some kind of nexus of our distinguishing between voluntary and involuntary action, but these types of separations are largely arbitrary. Both conditions (the involuntary and voluntary) are necessary for our experience in its current form, so that the sense of self might as well extend into the involuntary action, even to the point that everything "is you". It just doesn't work well on a practical day-to-day level, but the idea that does gets very murky when we talk about problems like free will.

The mind is obviously very dependant on the brain when we look at surface conscious activity, but if we include things like the factor that enables the emergence of consciousness, on a deeper existential level than the growth of organic matter (and why not?), mind could be said to extend beyond it. The question is whether we are going to define consciousness (and intelligence) by some complex emergent functions of modern brains or something very integral to the fabric of the universe itself - everytime you try to define consciousness and intelligence you're going to find evident aspects of it even in very basic phenomena, like even a light switch could be said to incorporate some kind of consciousness, and intelligence is evident in the most basic of protozoa. Where are you going to draw the line?

i like will but i prefer carlton

  On 1/23/2016 at 12:01 AM, chim said:

I think it's important to distinguish our sense of self not just as a conceptual idea, but as a by-product of a large and complex framework. The reference of self occurs at some kind of nexus of our distinguishing between voluntary and involuntary action, but these types of separations are largely arbitrary. Both conditions (the involuntary and voluntary) are necessary for our experience in its current form, so that the sense of self might as well extend into the involuntary action, even to the point that everything "is you". It just doesn't work well on a practical day-to-day level, but the idea that does gets very murky when we talk about problems like free will.

 

The mind is obviously very dependant on the brain when we look at surface conscious activity, but if we include things like the factor that enables the emergence of consciousness, on a deeper existential level than the growth of organic matter (and why not?), mind could be said to extend beyond it. The question is whether we are going to define consciousness (and intelligence) by some complex emergent functions of modern brains or something very integral to the fabric of the universe itself - everytime you try to define consciousness and intelligence you're going to find evident aspects of it even in very basic phenomena, like even a light switch could be said to incorporate some kind of consciousness, and intelligence is evident in the most basic of protozoa. Where are you going to draw the line?

was gonna post something kinda related to this yesterday after watching sam harris vid. some people simplify conciousness/brain shiz to point of being liking describing how a light switch works--but then thought was shit analogy.

Using my free will I post this here: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28746-do-impulsive-people-have-less-free-will-than-the-rest-of-us/

I think the following things:

-Ego dissolution effects from psychedelics

-Lack of inhibition from alcohol

-Hyperactivity from stimulants

-Effect of drugs on our behavior in general

Are all evidence of "free will" i.e. our behavior is completely deterministic based on the chemical state of our brains at a given moment and past learning experiences. Other thought experiments like the "Take 100 billion people and make them each simulate a neuron with hand motions or some shit, are they a brain and does it have consciousness?" also sort of seal the deal for me

So yeah, "free will" for sure.

really thought that said "Free Wifi"

anyways.. i've tried to read some books about fatalism and free will... it didn't work out. i tried to read "Fate Time and Language: An Essay On Free Will" by david foster wallace... didn't work out. .though i'm a huge fan of his work and have read all his other books 2 or 3 times.

but that stuff becomes some high level logic and weird math and fuck if i can understand i or need to torture my brain like that. even reading "Everything and More: A Compact History of Infinity" is some mind blowing shit.

both those books i mention i'd recommend to take on if you want to think about this stuff. it's smart, well written and can be tackled by the average geek and is entertaining.. sort of like one really smart person sharing something he thought was cool and trying to explain it.

I enjoy the virtual reality I live in as dictated by electronic activity in my brain. Thinking about this stuff makes me flaccid. (Pronounced flak-sid- look it up)

  On 1/24/2016 at 6:04 AM, ignatius said:

really thought that said "Free Wifi"

 

anyways.. i've tried to read some books about fatalism and free will... it didn't work out. i tried to read "Fate Time and Language: An Essay On Free Will" by david foster wallace... didn't work out. .though i'm a huge fan of his work and have read all his other books 2 or 3 times.

 

I share the sentiments. When I read your post I was initially surprised I didn't know this essay. But upon digging further, I realized I simply forgot about it. It's right on my bookshelf. And I remember starting to read it. It just didnt grab me in any way.

While digging, I found an interesting review though. Most interestingly for the current discussion is a quote from William James:

  Quote

Compare David Foster Wallace's turbid formulas with James's modest but powerful declaration a hundred years earlier: "My first act of free will is to believe in free will".

Really says it all.

I feel like "free will" in western philosophy is legacy from Christian theology, i.e. why we are responsible for our own actions instead of the omnipotent God controlling us like puppets.

In neurological and computational intelligence point of view it doesn't make much sense. What is the "free will" free from? Deterministic reality? Is it then just a random number generator in our brains and how is that better than a deterministic process?

As a personal experience of "free will" apart from the philosophical concept I'm wagering it's just a psychological effect that gave evolutionary advantage when consciousness developed. It would be pretty horrifying if you were conscious but felt like you have no control over your own actions.

Also when you realize that your thoughts are created by processes in your brain you perhaps better understand why you act and think in certain ways and can control your own thoughts to a point. Like metaprogramming or whatever.

Anyway, shit's going to get interesting with the rise of artificial intelligence, neurological enhancements, etc.

I would assume that it would be about freedom to choose within the constraints of circumstance, rather than freedom from the grand scheme of reality. If you are able to decide whether to act on an impulse or not, are you not in possession of free will? Furthermore, if you are fully able to do what you feel most compelled to do, is that not an aspect of free will? Or is it only in self-denial that we exercise freedom?

How would encephalic free will have to look to be accepted from a neurological standpoint? Why is it not acceptable that what we should define as free will appears under these circumstances when studied? Computational intelligence is largely irrelevant, the fact that the brain is like a computer doesn't mean that it is a computer.

"Yes I have free will; I have no choice but to have it." Christopher Hitchens

chim, I just want to say I always enjoy your posts on these subjects.

I am also curious about longer, more deliberate decision-making, as opposed to snap-decisions that seem to dominate the research cited in this thread. I have thought about personal issues for years before coming to a decision; did I make that final call based on any will above a chemical level? I realize the decision to put off a decision is deciding in its own right.

  On 1/24/2016 at 11:07 AM, mokz said:

In neurological and computational intelligence point of view it doesn't make much sense. What is the "free will" free from? Deterministic reality? Is it then just a random number generator in our brains and how is that better than a deterministic process?

 

Precisely.

To talk about free will first you have to talk about determinism.

The universe is probably* deterministic ... however that determinism makes no difference because in practice there is no way to run a model of the universe and use it to predict the future. A device that could simulate the universe and run it forward in time etc by simulating every subatomic particle would have to be bigger than the universe itself.

So in a way the universe is like a machine that is calculating its own deterministic outcome. Its deterministic, but there's no way of telling what happens until we get there for real.

The universe is an immense cascade of cause-and-effect unfolding all around with us embedded into it.

But I think we can recover a sortof 'working definition' of Free Will from this, that perhaps bears little resemblance to the original religious meaning but makes sense to me:

When a being makes a decision, its a mix of proximate cause-and-effect happening within their nervous system/brain also mixed in with some signals coming in from the cause-and-effect cascade outside. If we followed the cause-and-effect chains happening in the brain back far enough a lot of it would come from outside originally (e.g learned behaviour from external stimuli) but if we decide not to follow the chains too far back and just look at proximate cause-and-effect we can say this:

If most of that 'decision mix' of cause-and-effect chains is coming from inside the brain, with just a bit from outside, then I'd say that being is fully involved in shaping its future and so could be said to have something like Free Will.

(* probably determinstic - you can throw some quantum 'randomness' in if you like, but it doesn't make much difference to the rest of the argument. We still have a universe that can't be predicted in practice)

  On 1/24/2016 at 8:27 PM, luke viia said:

chim, I just want to say I always enjoy your posts on these subjects.

 

I am also curious about longer, more deliberate decision-making, as opposed to snap-decisions that seem to dominate the research cited in this thread. I have thought about personal issues for years before coming to a decision; did I make that final call based on any will above a chemical level? I realize the decision to put off a decision is deciding in its own right.

Yeah there's the issue of like life-long goals and aspirations too as opposed to "should I run if I get scared" or "should I swat that painful thing biting me right now" which are more reflex reactions. But I think other examples in the animal kingdom sort of discredit this as well

What is the lifelong goal and aspiration of an ant? To gather foot and bring it back. Well its behavior can be modified by cordiceps fungi so that its new lifelong goal (not snap second decisions but a goal which it actively tries to achieve via many steps) is to climb to the tops of trees then die.

So the fact that a fungi can do this via I assume shitting out the right neurotransmitters sort of supports biological determinism of actions

Then in humans there's stuff like heroin addiction which can modify longterm decisions as well i.e. "I'm going to go become a prostitute to go buy more heroin" which the person would otherwise NOT do without this external substance influencing their neurochemical state

  On 1/24/2016 at 9:14 PM, zazen said:

The universe is probably* deterministic ... however that determinism makes no difference because in practice there is no way to run a model of the universe and use it to predict the future. A device that could simulate the universe and run it forward in time etc by simulating every subatomic particle would have to be bigger than the universe itself.

If the universe is wholly deterministic, and we could build a general purpose quantum computer, it would be interesting to see whether that would still be true. Or it might be possible to generate small scale simulations of local spatial regions that could be predictive. This would all remain entirely theoretical though until you could actually capture the entire quantum state of every bit of matter and energy in said region, and you'd have to do it instantaneously as well, so still pretty unlikely to ever happen.

  On 1/24/2016 at 9:14 PM, zazen said:

 

So in a way the universe is like a machine that is calculating its own deterministic outcome. Its deterministic, but there's no way of telling what happens until we get there for real.

 

Very interesting to note, reminds me of the halting problem.

I think long-term decision making is interesting as well, since people can choose from so many factors to influence their decision, some random, some probably not. A huge aspect of this is subconscious, but I don't think that exempts will. I think it's a mistake to think of will as purely conscious.

  On 1/24/2016 at 9:46 PM, Zeffolia said:

What is the lifelong goal and aspiration of an ant? To gather foot and bring it back. Well its behavior can be modified by cordiceps fungi so that its new lifelong goal (not snap second decisions but a goal which it actively tries to achieve via many steps) is to climb to the tops of trees then die.

So the fact that a fungi can do this via I assume shitting out the right neurotransmitters sort of supports biological determinism of actions

Then in humans there's stuff like heroin addiction which can modify longterm decisions as well i.e. "I'm going to go become a prostitute to go buy more heroin" which the person would otherwise NOT do without this external substance influencing their neurochemical state

 

You're talking about hijacking of normal processes by harmful/unnatural substances. A blow to the head can affect a persons personality as well, what does that prove? That people don't function well when they're harmed? Interestingly enough, a person suffering under addiction often does NOT feel that they have a free will, or that they are making the 'right' decisions.

You seem to argue that people don't possess free will because their inclinations are in line with natural conditions. It's absolutely nonsensical to me that a person with free will would only think of and want things that can't be.

  On 1/24/2016 at 9:14 PM, zazen said:

To talk about free will first you have to talk about determinism.

 

The universe is probably* deterministic ... however that determinism makes no difference because in practice there is no way to run a model of the universe and use it to predict the future. A device that could simulate the universe and run it forward in time etc by simulating every subatomic particle would have to be bigger than the universe itself.

 

It's too speculative to talk of a purely deterministic universe, it's a bit of a symptom of replacing reality with the symbols we use to describe/approximate it. Even if so, when we talk the complexity of cause-and-effect, I have two questions: when we reach that level of resolution, why is it not acceptable as free will simply because the process can be broken into smaller constituents? It's like saying that people aren't real because on one level, it's all atoms moving about. Why is one locus of magnitude more valid than the other?

  On 1/24/2016 at 11:03 PM, chim said:

I think long-term decision making is interesting as well, since people can choose from so many factors to influence their decision, some random, some probably not. A huge aspect of this is subconscious, but I don't think that exempts will. I think it's a mistake to think of will as purely conscious.

 

  On 1/24/2016 at 9:46 PM, Zeffolia said:

What is the lifelong goal and aspiration of an ant? To gather foot and bring it back. Well its behavior can be modified by cordiceps fungi so that its new lifelong goal (not snap second decisions but a goal which it actively tries to achieve via many steps) is to climb to the tops of trees then die.

 

So the fact that a fungi can do this via I assume shitting out the right neurotransmitters sort of supports biological determinism of actions

 

Then in humans there's stuff like heroin addiction which can modify longterm decisions as well i.e. "I'm going to go become a prostitute to go buy more heroin" which the person would otherwise NOT do without this external substance influencing their neurochemical state

 

 

You're talking about hijacking of normal processes by harmful/unnatural substances. A blow to the head can affect a persons personality as well, what does that prove? That people don't function well when they're harmed? Interestingly enough, a person suffering under addiction often does NOT feel that they have a free will, or that they are making the 'right' decisions.

 

You seem to argue that people don't possess free will because their inclinations are in line with natural conditions. It's absolutely nonsensical to me that a person with free will would only think of and want things that can't be.

 

  On 1/24/2016 at 9:14 PM, zazen said:

To talk about free will first you have to talk about determinism.

 

The universe is probably* deterministic ... however that determinism makes no difference because in practice there is no way to run a model of the universe and use it to predict the future. A device that could simulate the universe and run it forward in time etc by simulating every subatomic particle would have to be bigger than the universe itself.

 

 

It's too speculative to talk of a purely deterministic universe, it's a bit of a symptom of replacing reality with the symbols we use to describe/approximate it. Even if so, when we talk the complexity of cause-and-effect, I have two questions: when we reach that level of resolution, why is it not acceptable as free will simply because the process can be broken into smaller constituents? It's like saying that people aren't real because on one level, it's all atoms moving about. Why is one locus of magnitude more valid than the other?

What I was saying earlier is that the fact that feelings of free will (having a self) can be disrupted by substances can be interpreted in different ways:

a) We have true free will while our brain's chemistry is untampered with, but once tampered with it goes away and we feel we've lost our free will

b) We never have true free will, it's just an illusion given to us by our brain, and this illusion is taken away while under the influence of these substances

The fact that a person says "I didn't feel like I was under control" could just be evidence that the illusion was temporarily overcome by more powerful forces. Similar to a person in a fit of rage smashing things which they don't want to smash, or a person being tortured saying things they don't want to say.

free will

will for what?

will for will

free from what?

not willing the will?

isn't will alone something inherently free

free of what?

free of not willing

everything is inert even will alone

inert to what?

to not willing the will

what is will?

every i is will

am i free?

will i will?

good article: http://optimal.org/voss/freewill.html

So far, free will has just been a necessary illusion, and that's all.

"Freedom is existence, and in it existence precedes essence."

  On 1/26/2016 at 12:03 PM, MDM Chaos said:

"Freedom is existence, and in it existence precedes essence."

But only my mind exists, remember? I made you up.

Also, enough about free will, what about free would?

  On 1/26/2016 at 12:11 PM, xox said:

 

  On 1/26/2016 at 12:03 PM, MDM Chaos said:

"Freedom is existence, and in it existence precedes essence."

But only my mind exists, remember? I made you up.

Also, enough about free will, what about free would?

who said that? haunted! the internet is haunted!!!