If you say so
I do say so, I think it's a dodgy mistake for you or anyone else to treat the position you prefer as some sort of default as if some specific position is *the* "philosophical" one and all others are less valid, or "logical" etc..
Free will
- Thread starter neocon
- Start date
I do say so, I think it's a dodgy mistake for you or anyone else to treat the position you prefer as some sort of default as if some specific position is *the* "philosophical" one and all others are less valid, or "logical" etc..
I didn't state which position I prefer. I don't know if free will exists or not and never claimed to know. My point was that if we're working on the assumption that the human brain is governed by the same laws of physics that the rest of the universe is, then the question of whether those laws of physics are ultimately deterministic or not (something else that I don't know, and never claimed to know) is fundamental to answering whether free will exists or not.
No, it isn't IMO and that is the position I'm referring to - the question the thread is concerned with is whether free will exist. You might prefer the position that determinism is fundamental to free will, but that's what I was referring to in the post you just quoted.
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.
I think you have probably spent a lot of time on the subject so i will just pull the "ok" face and back away slowly
Again, I'm not expressing any preference. You seem to be missing the point that I'm making, so I think I'll just leave it there.
I think you're missing the point or not following - you wrote: "then the question of whether those laws of physics are ultimately deterministic or not ([...]) is fundamental to answering whether free will exists or not."
Are you now saying you're ambivalent towards that position - you state clearly there your belief that it is "fundamental", I disagree.
I think you've assumed I was referring to a position on whether determinism exists or not or on whether free will exists or not but in that post, I was referring to the claim that determinism negates free will. If you've changed your mind or mean something else then that's cool but I can only go on what you've said.
Note, to be clear - I'm *not* referring to your position on whether free will or whether determinism exists, I'm away you've said you have no preference on that.
It depends whether our behaviour can be determined/defined by the behaviour of our constituent parts, no?
If our brain activity can be defined as the (entirely predictable) progression of its constituent atoms/molecules, obeying nothing but the laws of physics at the atomic/subatomic (etc) level.
In which case our brains, for all their sophistication, are just a watch. We can no more shape our thoughts than we can shape the interactions between atoms and molecules. Because they are one and the same.
In that case we are just observers. The decisions we make are just the consequence of the billions of atoms (etc) interacting (predictably) in our brains.
Surely then free will is an illusion. Even if you believe you are making decisions you cannot be. Your decisions are the consequence of the laws of physics. You could only ever make the decision you made. There was no "green dress or blue skirt". The atoms in your brain, interacting in a formulaic manner, decided on the blue skirt.
So there was only ever one outcome. Was there a choice? Did you make a choice? Or did your brain simply carry out its (sub)atomic programming. Does making choices even constitute "free will," anyhow?
Does a sophisticated computer program have free will? It makes its own kind of "choices" based on data. Based on the laws of physics, too.
A computer program with sufficient/comparable complexity - does it have free will?
I don't believe so no and I don't (currently) think adding in any randomness changes that, at least not as far as our current understanding of how the brain works.
That can be the case with some randomness thrown in too - it doesn't require predictability, I mean for all we know at the moment the brain does seem to be deterministic but suppose there is some phenomenon whereby there is some randomness thrown in, I don't see that necessarily changing much tbh... Likewise, your consciousness itself is the result of those (for all we know) deterministic processes in your brain yet you're still you, you're still a conscious being despite being like a watch...
Perhaps one day in the future we'll create an artificial, sentient being that has consciousness but that also acts, makes decisions via completely deterministic processes - that it is predictable doesn't negate that it has made a decision and that it is deterministic doesn't necessarily rule out that it is a sentient being, that is conscious etc...
Ah lol, oops, I've been replying to a few lines at a time and just wrote about computers above then moved on to read the last bit of your post here - It could do perhaps - I don't see why we can't, in theory, create an artificial being that is conscious/sentient and therefore the actions/choices it makes are attributed to that conscious, sentient being etc...
I mean suppose we start being able to integrate our brains with electronics - neural implants will start to become a thing soon - but suppose in the future you were able to steadily augment your brain with electronics and/or even start getting rid of biological bits and replacing them with electronic parts etc.. I'm not talking about a copy of you but steadily enhancing and augmenting your instance of you... iterate over that process and eventually remove all bio bits of your brain and you're left with a fully electronic "you" - some sort of transhumanism to extend your life when your bio body fails. I don't think that whether your brain is its current bio entity or some electronic machine necessarily changes anything here.
I dunno, perhaps we will find that there is some non-deterministic process that is fundamental to the working of the human brain in the future, I'm open to that being the case but I don't see that it is necessary currently.
I think the point is that there are two ways of looking at your choices (assuming choices are related to/an indicator of free will).
You could say, "I reasoned on the matter and made a decision."
But somebody else could say, "What you experienced as decision making I can describe in terms of the physics of the matter and energy in your brain. Without knowing anything about how you made your choice logically, or how you experienced the decision-making process, I can tell you what you decided just by observing the electrochemical/physical interactions in your brain. I don't need to know what you were thinking, in order to tell you what you decided."
You could say, "I reasoned on the matter and made a decision."
But somebody else could say, "What you experienced as decision making I can describe in terms of the physics of the matter and energy in your brain. Without knowing anything about how you made your choice logically, or how you experienced the decision-making process, I can tell you what you decided just by observing the electrochemical/physical interactions in your brain. I don't need to know what you were thinking, in order to tell you what you decided."
I don't think that being able to explain the process matters - I mean coming back to this notion you mentioned of you simply being an observer - I don't see why that needs to be decoupled from this, the observer - you/your consciousness... suppose that is the result of a deterministic process, we're not talking about some separate magical entity merely observing a deterministic process but rather that you as a conscious being are also perhaps the product of a deterministic process - suppose in theory some outside observer could predict what your consciousness will experience and what decisions you might make.. does that mean your consciousness doesn't exist, because it is deterministic and someone else could know what you think, what you're experiencing etc..
Yes, though kind of connected, similar arguments can be put forth - you could question either but I guess you're happy to accept one as given, even in the case of a deterministic universe but throw out the other (though I wonder if some people who will throw out the other as a result of determinism cope consciousness that by adding in some supernatural element etc.. separating some observer or perhaps for religious people thrown in a soul element to it etc..). In the latter case, it reminds me of some of the bad (IMO) arguments against Strong AI - Searle's Chinese room argument for example (though in that case god doesn't feature rather biological naturalism does).
I think the point is a little different - what is free will? Is it about whether or not you're allowed to do what you're programmed to do? Or does free will require being able to choose for yourself rather than merely following your programming?
But the choices and which you'll choose will be based on and guided/weighted by the experiences you have - even when you stop to think about a choice that is provoked by something like reading this thread for instance.
Yes, but how much weighting? If the weighting is 100%, i.e. deterministic, there is no choice. Only the illusion of choice. Is that still free will? If so, in what sense is it free?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 35,717
There is no free will if there’s an illusion of choice.
I agree, but some people don't. Some people argue that free will still exists even if people have no choice in what they do because everything is deterministic. I'm not sure how. I'll have to read up on it when I am more alert.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 35,717
If the choice has already been decided and you think there is a choice how can you choose (free will) ?