Free will

[dowie]

Ok, good. So, you’re blackout drunk and have no free will at the time but your brain is still making decisions and actions on your behalf. So if the conscious self is just awareness of the decisions and actions that the subconscious is making anyway, consciousness doesn’t equate to free will.

Part of your brain is yes - that happens when you're conscious too - you don't consciously decide when to breath or when your heart should beat right? I mean you can choose to take over your breathing - choose to hyperventilate or hold your breath just because... by your own free will, and if you want you could do it to the point where you pass out - though then you'll likely just start breathing automatically - which is just part of your brain running on autopilot.

If the predictions are 100% accurate based on deterministic analysis, then it suggests I have no agency to do anything different, and hence no free will.

Well, it wouldn't be 100% but for the sake of argument no it doesn't suggest that at all. I mean we can predict some behaviour broadly anyway - predicting some chess move doesn't remove agency... Some theoretical observer outside our universe might be able to predict everything even I mean I commented on that already so I'm not sure why introducing some constraints and talking about some theoretical finite, localized prediction adds anything beyond some theoretical observer that can predict literally everything?

It comes back to the point that we simply don’t know enough about our brain activity yet to say one way or another. It doesn’t have to be ‘magic’ or a ‘soul’ but if there is some element of unpredictability then it allows for the potential for free will, even if we don’t understand the mechanisms behind it yet.

I don't see what that adds here - like you say we don't know enough about our brain activity yet so why have a hard view re: some randomness or unpredictability being significant here?

 

[Irish_Tom]

I’m going to bed.

To be continued.

 

[Irish_Tom]

Part of your brain is yes - that happens when you're conscious too - you don't consciously decide when to breath or when your heart should beat right? I mean you can choose to take over your breathing - choose to hyperventilate or hold your breath just because... by your own free will, and if you want you could do it to the point where you pass out - though then you'll likely just start breathing automatically - which is just part of your brain running on autopilot.

Sure, so where does the thought to hyperventilate or hold your breath come from? If you don’t have the thought of doing it, you won’t ever do it. Did you actively, consciously, have that thought? Or did you have the thought and your conscious-self simply observed the thought taking place?

It may feel like it was a conscious decision but how can you know?

If you have no conscious control over having the thoughts (because they are generated by some deterministic process in your brain) then you don't really have free will.

Well, it wouldn't be 100% but for the sake of argument no it doesn't suggest that at all. I mean we can predict some behaviour broadly anyway - predicting some chess move doesn't remove agency... Some theoretical observer outside our universe might be able to predict everything even I mean I commented on that already so I'm not sure why introducing some constraints and talking about some theoretical finite, localized prediction adds anything beyond some theoretical observer that can predict literally everything?

We’re not talking about just predicting a few chess moves though, we’re talking about predicting those moves based on a deterministic view of what’s going on in my brain. If I decide to try and trick the observer by throwing a chess piece across the room or flipping the table it doesn’t matter, the observer would already know I was going to do that. I literally can’t out-fox the observer because every thought I have, every action, is already known to them and was always going to happen because those thoughts were predicated on the causality of brain activity in my head.

There would be literally nothing I could do to change the outcome because my conscious-self has no control over the thoughts that pop into my head. Therefore no agency and therefore no free will.

It feels like we’re going around in circles now, to be honest.

I don't see what that adds here - like you say we don't know enough about our brain activity yet so why have a hard view re: some randomness or unpredictability being significant here?

I don’t have a hard view of determinism itself. I have a view that the question of determinism is important to the question of free will. It’s perfectly possible that non-deterministic brain function also negates the existence of free will.

If the thoughts that pop into your head have an element of randomness, like some biological double-split experiment, it doesn’t exactly instil confidence in the idea that the conscious-self has control over one’s thoughts and actions.

So while we don’t have a clear understanding of the workings of the brain, we can still hypothesise about the implications of determinism (or lack of it) towards free will. I would suggest that to ignore those potential implications is to miss out on a rather significant element of the question.

 

[dowie]

Sure, so where does the thought to hyperventilate or hold your breath come from? If you don’t have the thought of doing it, you won’t ever do it. Did you actively, consciously, have that thought? Or did you have the thought and your conscious-self simply observed the thought taking place?

It may feel like it was a conscious decision but how can you know?

If you have no conscious control over having the thoughts (because they are generated by some deterministic process in your brain) then you don't really have free will.

But surely that is what we're referring to - I guess this perhaps depends on how you define free will - surely your conscious decision to do something - your body is automatically breathing but you have the ability right now, to choose to hold your breath for say 10 seconds etc...

We’re not talking about just predicting a few chess moves though, we’re talking about predicting those moves based on a deterministic view of what’s going on in my brain. If I decide to try and trick the observer by throwing a chess piece across the room or flipping the table it doesn’t matter, the observer would already know I was going to do that. I literally can’t out-fox the observer because every thought I have, every action, is already known to them and was always going to happen because those thoughts were predicated on the causality of brain activity in my head.

There would be literally nothing I could do to change the outcome because my conscious-self has no control over the thoughts that pop into my head. Therefore no agency and therefore no free will.

It feels like we’re going around in circles now, to be honest.

We don't have to be - I don't see this bit as particularly relevant - I mean for the sake of argument I've already, several posts back, proposed some theoretical observer who can predict literally everything so I'm not sure what getting sidetracked into some discussion about some other observer who may or may not be able to predict some chess moves or a few other things adds here that couldn't already have been covered by in the first place.

We can leave it vague and general if it helps you - you have some observer who can predict stuff right?

I don’t have a hard view of determinism itself. I have a view that the question of determinism is important to the question of free will. It’s perfectly possible that non-deterministic brain function also negates the existence of free will.

If the thoughts that pop into your head have an element of randomness, like some biological double-split experiment, it doesn’t exactly instil confidence in the idea that the conscious-self has control over one’s thoughts and actions.

So while we don’t have a clear understanding of the workings of the brain, we can still hypothesise about the implications of determinism (or lack of it) towards free will. I would suggest that to ignore those potential implications is to miss out on a rather significant element of the question.

Absolutely we can - but I'd contend that given we don't have a clear understanding of the workings of the brain you can't really state that either negates free will. As I said several posts back this perhaps comes down to what is meant by free will - it's perhaps a slightly vague concept itself. I mean you could get into all sorts of vague questions about what is consciousness etc..

 

[Irish_Tom]

But surely that is what we're referring to - I guess this perhaps depends on how you define free will - surely your conscious decision to do something - your body is automatically breathing but you have the ability right now, to choose to hold your breath for say 10 seconds etc...

I think there should be a rule for online discussion that all participants agree on the definitions of the terms being used before any debate can begin.

Ok, so we define free will as the conscious ability to think, make decisions and perform actions.

We’ve already determined that the brain performs plenty of unconscious actions. We’ve also determined that the brain can guide the body around as if, for all intents and purposes, there was a conscious-self in the driving seat (whilst inebriated), walking, talking, eating, dancing, having sex — it’s all possible while your conscious self is entirely unaware of what your brain and body are doing.

So what then makes you so sure that while your conscious-self is ‘awake’, it actually has any more control than when it has checked-out?

You say that you can choose to hold your breath, but is that your conscious-self making the decision to do so, or some subconscious decision-making process deciding to do it before you’re conscious self is even aware that that’s what it wants to do?

It comes down to the source of the thoughts and decisions that you think you’re in control over.

Try clearing your mind completely. Don’t think about anything for as long as possible. You’ll quickly realise that a) it’s incredibly difficult and b) you have little control over the thoughts that are popping into your head.

If you don’t have as much control over your thoughts as you think you do [sic] it begs the question of where those thoughts are coming from and that starts to lead down the path of deterministic (or not) brain activity.

We don't have to be - I don't see this bit as particularly relevant - I mean for the sake of argument I've already, several posts back, proposed some theoretical observer who can predict literally everything so I'm not sure what getting sidetracked into some discussion about some other observer who may or may not be able to predict some chess moves or a few other things adds here that couldn't already have been covered by in the first place.

We can leave it vague and general if it helps you - you have some observer who can predict stuff right?

If you don’t think it’s relevant, I’m not going to keep reiterating the point. I think I’ve made it clearly already and it doesn’t need to be vague or general — it’s pretty specific.

Absolutely we can - but I'd contend that given we don't have a clear understanding of the workings of the brain you can't really state that either negates free will. As I said several posts back this perhaps comes down to what is meant by free will - it's perhaps a slightly vague concept itself. I mean you could get into all sorts of vague questions about what is consciousness etc…

Indeed, and that’s what makes it such an interesting philosophical question.

 

[dowie]

We’ve already determined that the brain performs plenty of unconscious actions. We’ve also determined that the brain can guide the body around as if, for all intents and purposes, there was a conscious-self in the driving seat (whilst inebriated), walking, talking, eating, dancing, having sex — it’s all possible while your conscious self is entirely unaware of what your brain and body are doing.

So what then makes you so sure that while your conscious-self is ‘awake’, it actually has any more control than when it has checked-out?

I'm not sure what you mean. If I choose to do so I can hold my breath right now - that is also something that can carry on happening while I'm sleeping say or generally is an automatic process. I think this part of the discussion came into play because you seemed to be proposing some binary situation where we're either in control of what our brain does or not when really the brain has plenty of things it does that doesn't require consciousness but surely when it comes to free will we're talking about the things our conscious mind is making the decision to do right?

You say that you can choose to hold your breath, but is that your conscious-self making the decision to do so, or some subconscious decision-making process deciding to do it before you’re conscious self is even aware that that’s what it wants to do?

It comes down to the source of the thoughts and decisions that you think you’re in control over.

Isn't that what we're referring to re: free will - if not then what is it? You mentioned your consciousness/thinking right?

Try clearing your mind completely. Don’t think about anything for as long as possible. You’ll quickly realise that a) it’s incredibly difficult and b) you have little control over the thoughts that are popping into your head.

If you don’t have as much control over your thoughts as you think you do [sic] it begs the question of where those thoughts are coming from and that starts to lead down the path of deterministic (or not) brain activity.

But surely thoughts popping into your brain aren't what we're talking about, if you're talking about involuntary responses then that's conflating this as per breathing where you haven't consciously taken control of it etc.. rather how you respond to them and/or other stimuli - some things are involuntary - if you get stressed or anxious for example you can't necessarily just choose to not feel stressed or anxious or scared etc.. you can choose other aspects of your response though.

Your free will isn't the stress response itself or some involuntary shaking or heartbeat risking etc.. but it could be the decision to consciously take some deep breaths or to meditate or to deal with the situation that is causing you some stress.. or to try and ignore it. That we have other influences, emotions, triggers etc.. doesn't negate free will - surely free will is the conscious decision we make.

If you don’t think it’s relevant, I’m not going to keep reiterating the point. I think I’ve made it clearly already and it doesn’t need to be vague or general — it’s pretty specific.

I'm not sure you've given a reason for it being relevant? Why do you need the observer to be limited? What difference does it make here? I'm happy to accept some theoretical observer as I've already said - I don't see the relevance of it being constrained - but if you'd like to explain that then go ahead. If not then let's just accept there is some observer? I don't think it is particularly relevant - I'm happy to accept some observer - I don't see how it changes anything.

 

[Irish_Tom]

I'm not sure what you mean. If I choose to do so I can hold my breath right now - that is also something that can carry on happening while I'm sleeping say or generally is an automatic process. I think this part of the discussion came into play because you seemed to be proposing some binary situation where we're either in control of what our brain does or not when really the brain has plenty of things it does that doesn't require consciousness but surely when it comes to free will we're talking about the things our conscious mind is making the decision to do right?

Isn't that what we're referring to re: free will - if not then what is it? You mentioned your consciousness/thinking right?

But surely thoughts popping into your brain aren't what we're talking about, if you're talking about involuntary responses then that's conflating this as per breathing where you haven't consciously taken control of it etc.. rather how you respond to them and/or other stimuli - some things are involuntary - if you get stressed or anxious for example you can't necessarily just choose to not feel stressed or anxious or scared etc.. you can choose other aspects of your response though.

Your free will isn't the stress response itself or some involuntary shaking or heartbeat risking etc.. but it could be the decision to consciously take some deep breaths or to meditate or to deal with the situation that is causing you some stress.. or to try and ignore it. That we have other influences, emotions, triggers etc.. doesn't negate free will - surely free will is the conscious decision we make.

The whole point is that the conscious decisions we think we’re making could actually be subconscious decisions that, for want of a better word, our mind ‘tricks’ us into thinking are conscious decisions.

That’s why experiments showing brain activity as much as 11 seconds before the subject is consciously aware of the decision they’ve made are so significant.

That’s also why the question of determinism is so important.

Conscious decision making could be entirely illusory and, if that the case, it negates free will.

I'm not sure you've given a reason for it being relevant? Why do you need the observer to be limited? What difference does it make here? I'm happy to accept some theoretical observer as I've already said - I don't see the relevance of it being constrained - but if you'd like to explain that then go ahead. If not then let's just accept there is some observer? I don't think it is particularly relevant - I'm happy to accept some observer - I don't see how it changes anything.

You’re getting hung up on unimportant aspect of the analogy and completely missing the point.

If brain function is deterministic then all of our thoughts and actions are essentially ‘on rails’. We actually have no conscious control over them even if it feels like we do. Therefore, any experience we have of free will is entirely illusory.

If that is the case, an outside observer using a deterministic simulation would be able to know exactly what we’re going to think, say and do in the future. Nothing we could do would change that because any attempt to ‘disrupt the timeline’ via a random act would already be baked into the simulation.

If we’re unable to change the future via conscious thought (because the conscious-self is effectively a passenger with a toy steering wheel) then free will can’t exist.

That’s all there is too it, it’s a very simple point.

 

[dowie]

The whole point is that the conscious decisions we think we’re making could actually be subconscious decisions that, for want of a better word, our mind ‘tricks’ us into thinking are conscious decisions.

That’s why experiments showing brain activity as much as 11 seconds before the subject is consciously aware of the decision they’ve made are so significant.

That doesn't really follow necessarily, You might just be looking at a lag, you might be looking at part of the process that we refer to as consciousness etc..

That’s also why the question of determinism is so important.

Conscious decision making could be entirely illusory and, if that the case, it negates free will.

Not particularly, I'd disagree with that as I don't think determinism is important here.

You’re getting hung up on unimportant aspect of the analogy and completely missing the point.

No, quite the opposite, I'm specifically saying I'm not hung up on it/don't care about it and am happy to accept some observer as I have been for several posts, I don't see why the specifics of the observer are important tbh...

If brain function is deterministic then all of our thoughts and actions are essentially ‘on rails’. We actually have no conscious control over them even if it feels like we do. Therefore, any experience we have of free will is entirely illusory.

If that is the case, an outside observer using a deterministic simulation would be able to know exactly what we’re going to think, say and do in the future. Nothing we could do would change that because any attempt to ‘disrupt the timeline’ via a random act would already be baked into the simulation.

If we’re unable to change the future via conscious thought (because the conscious-self is effectively a passenger with a toy steering wheel) then free will can’t exist.

That’s all there is too it, it’s a very simple point.

But you're just reiterating there, essentially, the claim that if things are deterministic then free will doesn't exist. Which is the position I don't agree with and don't think matters in the first place! I mean I mentioned an observer several posts back - I didn't need adding to tbh..

I guess might have to agree to disagree on this one tbh... it's not as though I can see any novel arguments coming out here nor is this some problem that say all philosophers agree on, rather is an area that has had opposing views on for years and there are plenty of arguments you can go and read for and against whether determinism means free will can't exist or whether it matters or not whether non-determinism matters or not etc.. out there - it's unlikely that a couple of chumps on OCUK GD forum are going to propose anything new here.

 

[RxR]

There is an echoic memory preplanning buffer that holds (normally below awareness) what you will then hear yourself "think in your head consciously for the first time" with a 4 to 6 thousandths of 1 second gap in-between.

Errors can occur (or be injected) in that small time gap causing you to think what you never just-before intended to. And you can then be perfectly aware that "i never thought exactly what i intended to think" - even though you never inwardly 'heard yourself think the words or phrase once'.

The intent to think something is, in nearly every case, 'inner non-vocal' and not directly accessible to conscious awareness.

However, the intent to think (hear oneself think), decide or act is often just the same as earlier planned actions, or decisions weighed consciously prior to a triggering event or situation that calls them forth as the best likely conclusion, thought, decision or action. This fact does not support the conclusion that "if the brain at any given time intends it or computes it before I think or do it" then there is no freewill possible and you are just a sock-puppet of the universe.

 

[R.P.L]

But you're just reiterating there, essentially, the claim that if things are deterministic then free will doesn't exist. Which is the position I don't agree with

I'm not sure how you could not agree with that - if the universe and everything in it is deterministic then that categorically rules out free will. I don't see any way that could not be the case, because in a completely deterministic universe everything that happens is simply a result of everything that's happened before, including any thoughts we have.
I don't really see the conscious vs subconscious distinction as particularly relevant here either. If we work on the assumptions that conscious and subconscious thoughts are both produced by our brain and that our brain is not above the laws of physics that govern everything else in the universe (to work outside of those assumptions opens up a jumbo size can of worms), then the determinism question will always be a significant consideration.

 

[Irish_Tom]

That doesn't really follow necessarily, You might just be looking at a lag, you might be looking at part of the process that we refer to as consciousness etc.

Yeah, possibly — that comes back to the definition of consciousness and the fact that we don’t understand the brain enough yet.

Not particularly, I'd disagree with that as I don't think determinism is important here.

You keep saying this but I still don’t have a clear understanding of why you think that.

No, quite the opposite, I'm specifically saying I'm not hung up on it/don't care about it and am happy to accept some observer as I have been for several posts, I don't see why the specifics of the observer are important tbh...

They’re not, that’s what I’ve been saying though. Glad we agree on something!

But you're just reiterating there, essentially, the claim that if things are deterministic then free will doesn't exist. Which is the position I don't agree with and don't think matters in the first place! I mean I mentioned an observer several posts back - I didn't need adding to tbh..

As above, I understand that’s your position but I still don’t know why, specifically, you don’t think it matters. I even tried to Steelman your argument by saying it’s the practical application and not the philosophical question where it’s not important, but you said it’s specially the philosophical question where it’s not important, so I’m still none the wiser.

I guess might have to agree to disagree on this one tbh... it's not as though I can see any novel arguments coming out here nor is this some problem that say all philosophers agree on, rather is an area that has had opposing views on for years and there are plenty of arguments you can go and read for and against whether determinism means free will can't exist or whether it matters or not whether non-determinism matters or not etc.. out there - it's unlikely that a couple of chumps on OCUK GD forum are going to propose anything new here.

Yeah, that’s true.

Like I said, I don’t have a strong position on the existence or not of free will. Whether the universe is deterministic and we do have free will, the universe is deterministic and we don’t have free will, the universe isn’t deterministic and we have free will or the universe isn’t deterministic and we don’t have free will — the answer is fascinating but the real-world implications are practically non-existent. It’s just an interesting thought experiment.

I'm not sure how you could not agree with that - if the universe and everything in it is deterministic then that categorically rules out free will. I don't see any way that could not be the case, because in a completely deterministic universe everything that happens is simply a result of everything that's happened before, including any thoughts we have.
I don't really see the conscious vs subconscious distinction as particularly relevant here either. If we work on the assumptions that conscious and subconscious thoughts are both produced by our brain and that our brain is not above the laws of physics that govern everything else in the universe (to work outside of those assumptions opens up a jumbo size can of worms), then the determinism question will always be a significant consideration.

Thanks for that, I thought I was going mad.

 

[dowie]

I'm not sure how you could not agree with that - if the universe and everything in it is deterministic then that categorically rules out free will.

Well, I disagree, I mean that's pretty fundamental here and from my perspective, I could say the same thing about your take.

You keep saying this but I still don’t have a clear understanding of why you think that.

Well, likewise!

They’re not, that’s what I’ve been saying though. Glad we agree on something!

Well we had agreement on some observer already - I mentioned one in my first post! I don't know what was supposed to have been added by throwing in some constraints on something I had already introduced!

As above, I understand that’s your position but I still don’t know why, specifically, you don’t think it matters. I even tried to Steelman your argument by saying it’s the practical application and not the philosophical question where it’s not important, but you said it’s specially the philosophical question where it’s not important, so I’m still none the wiser.

Likewise, I'm not sure why you deem one position to be a philosophical position and not the other, that makes no sense unless you're perhaps completely unfamiliar with compatibilism:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

Perhaps read through the above, I doubt there is anything new to be added here - it took several posts with some stuff about an observer being introduced which seemed to not be relevant at all and then a restatement of the assertion that determinism eliminates free will which was the position objected to in the first place.

None of these ideas are new tbh.. and no one has added anything here and I don't anyone will, so probs better to just agree to disagree.

 

[R.P.L]

Well, I disagree, I mean that's pretty fundamental here and from my perspective, I could say the same thing about your take.

I wasn't stating an opinion. As far as I can tell everything I wrote holds true from a logical standpoint. Feel free to point out where you think I got it wrong if you want.

 

[Irish_Tom]

Likewise, I'm not sure why you deem one position to be a philosophical position and not the other, that makes no sense unless you're perhaps completely unfamiliar with compatibilism:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

Perhaps read through the above, I doubt there is anything new to be added here - it took several posts with some stuff about an observer being introduced which seemed to not be relevant at all and then a restatement of the assertion that determinism eliminates free will which was the position objected to in the first place.

None of these ideas are new tbh.. and no one has added anything here and I don't anyone will, so probs better to just agree to disagree.

Thanks for that. I’m well aware of Compatibilism — I’ve followed Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett’s arguments over free will for some time. What I didn't know until just now was that Compatibilism was your basis for rejecting the significants of determinism with regard to the subject of free will.

To be honest, if you'd just said "I subscribe to the ideas of Compatibilism" when asked why questions of determinism were misplaced, we might have saved ourselves a lot of back and forth over the last few days. Admittedly, we might have had days worth of back and forth discussing other aspects of the question, but it might not have been quite so circular…

FWIW, I find myself more inclined to agree with Harris than Dennett when it comes to this topic, but I think both of them are far to absolutist in their views on a subject that we simply don't understand enough about.

I agree with agreeing to disagree, I'll leave it there.

 

[Efour]

You have free will to decide anything or take any action you wish.

If you want to have free will but still live in a society with others with free will then you lose some of it to get along.

But ultimately essentially you can choose to or not do something, then you will starve, get killed, go to prison delete as appropriate.

anything more is post modern piffle.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear, I will choose Freewill


already linked to above ..........

 

[dowie]

Thanks for that. I’m well aware of Compatibilism — I’ve followed Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett’s arguments over free will for some time. What I didn't know until just now was that Compatibilism was your basis for rejecting the significants of determinism with regard to the subject of free will.

It's what my views are, it isn't a basis for them per se, but rather something my position falls into - literally by definition.

To be honest, if you'd just said "I subscribe to the ideas of Compatibilism" when asked why questions of determinism were misplaced, we might have saved ourselves a lot of back and forth over the last few days. Admittedly, we might have had days worth of back and forth discussing other aspects of the question, but it might not have been quite so circular…

Well likewise - you could have just said I subscribe to the ideas of incompatibilism... which is also obvious from what you stated in your first post, I mean surely the fundamental aspects of each position we have clearly fall into one or the other.

I agree with agreeing to disagree, I'll leave it there.

Cool, no worries.

 

[dowie]

I wasn't stating an opinion. As far as I can tell everything I wrote holds true from a logical standpoint. Feel free to point out where you think I got it wrong if you want.

You are stating an opinion though and likewise!

 

[Irish_Tom]

You have free will to decide anything or take any action you wish.

If you want to have free will but still live in a society with others with free will then you lose some of it to get along.

But ultimately essentially you can choose to or not do something, then you will starve, get killed, go to prison delete as appropriate.

anything more is post modern piffle.

I’m pretty sure that philosophical debate about the nature of free will predates Postmodernism, but if it makes you feel better to frame it that way, then you do you.

 

[R.P.L]

You are stating an opinion though and likewise!

If you say so