Free-will: The brain's veto rights (ScienceNow)

Ahnimus wrote:

angelica wrote:

I agree, Dan, about definitions of free-will. It's been obvious for awhile that Ahnimus' free-will and my own are like apples and oranges in comparison. I'm also willing to say that, imo, Ahnimus' version and the religious version are apples and oranges, as well.

They aren't at all. Either A) you are using the term incorrectly or you don't understand the term.

I'm on my fifth book on the subject now and they all talk about exactly the same thing. If it was a simple misunderstanding of the term, this wouldn't be a 5,000 year old debate.

The question of free will is whether, and in what sense, rational agents exercise control over their actions and decisions. Addressing this question requires understanding the relationship between freedom and cause, and determining whether or not the laws of nature are causally deterministic. The various philosophical positions taken differ on whether all events are determined or not—determinism versus indeterminism—and also on whether freedom can coexist with determinism or not—compatibilism versus incompatibilism. So, for instance, hard determinists argue that the universe is deterministic, and that this makes free will impossible.

The principle of free will has religious, ethical, and scientific implications. For example, in the religious realm, free will may imply that an omnipotent divinity does not assert its power over individual will and choices. In ethics, it may imply that individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions. In the scientific realm, it may imply that the actions of the body, including the brain and the mind, are not wholly determined by physical causality. The question of free will has been a central issue since the beginning of philosophical thought.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-will

As per your own source, the quoted wikipedia link you provide, there are varying views of free will:

"The principle of free will has religious, ethical, and scientific implications. For example, in the religious realm, free will may imply that an omnipotent divinity does not assert its power over individual will and choices. In ethics, it may imply that individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions. In the scientific realm, it may imply that the actions of the body, including the brain and the mind, are not wholly determined by physical causality. The question of free will has been a central issue since the beginning of philosophical thought."

Different groups look at the subject differently depending on the context they view it in.

As I ascertained the other day, you are misconstruing my view on free-will and what I understand to be any religious/spiritual person's view on it. Therefore I conclude that comparisons derived from this misconstrued point of view don't/can't/won't work.

Ahnimus wrote:

That paragraph is about the implications of whether or not free-will is true. Not the definition of free-will. The definition is not in dispute. I frequently see philosopher's describe the abusrdity of some non-philosopher's interpretations of the concept, but those are largely brushed aside as being unsophisticated.

The paragraph is about how different contexts have a different understanding of free will.

What I'm saying to you is that if we are seeing a totally different subject matter--and I see that we are--then we are comparing apples and oranges, which is why I stated that we are comparing apples and oranges.

Ahnimus wrote:

Now I am laughing. You claimed that intelligence is quantifiable, but we previously had a huge board discussion on quantifying intelligence and there were degrees of disagreeance. Intelligence is by no means quantifiable with our current knowledge of the human brain. We can speak of it in rough terms like g General Intelligence or Gardner's structured model of intelligence, but by no means are any of those theories verifiable. They are mere speculation at this point.

So, you've claimed to have knowledge that cognitive scientists themselves would only profess a belief in. Then you turn it around to suggest I am making an attempt to profess an absolute knowledge. Perhaps I simply have a greater depth of understanding of the topic. When you get past indeterminism as a door to freedom and complexity as a window of causelessness and you truly understand the concepts being discussed, then it will seem as though I'm not dictating.

Two plus Two equals Four. Is not a belief which needs to be argued. It's only challenged for comedy or out of completely absurd ignorance. I can guarantee you that what I've said is as solid as Two plus Two equals Four. But you can believe it equals 9 or 85, or whatever you want, it'll just be absurd and I can't take that seriously.

I challenge you to explain how free-will works without saying "it just happens" or a similar statement to that effect. Because if you say "God gave it to us" then God alone is the cause, and the decider of the attributes of the so-called free-will, and thus it is not free. If you toss a coin, each side of the coin has no volition over the outcome of the toss, and that's what indeterminist theory tries to suggest. Each side may have a weight modifier that causes heads to come up 51% over tails 49% of the time, but the actual deliberation is a mathematical certainty determined by a fixed law in nature, not the coin, not the head-side nor the tail-side.

You're in your own little world, Ahnimus.

baraka wrote:

ha ha, I just couldn't help myself. Let me remind you that Hard determinism is as much a philosophical axiom as free will. To suggest otherwise, shows how little one knows about the scientific method. You make good arguments. Don't 'dumb them down' with absurd statements as you will lose respect in such debates.

I think that there is no question that cause and effect is a very large part of our universe. However, so is randomness and chaos. Therefore, the Universe is neither deterministic nor chaotic but both. There are also random events that may or not be caused that happen to have random effects or occur at random times. Even in principle there are things and parameters that are unknown and unknowable. They are not opposites. They are different types of events and I see no conflict or contradiction. A random event can cause an effect. A cause can have a random effect.

Students of chaos have clung to the notion that chaotic systems retain some shreds of order. The shreds manifest themselves in the form of an attractor, a pattern of behavior toward which the system periodically settles. identifying the attractor enables one to predict the final behavior of a chaotic system, at least in a qualitative, statistical sense. That comforting notion has been damaged by Edward Ott of the University of Maryland and John C. Sommerer of Johns Hopkins University and their colleagues. They have shown that for certain systems that have more than one attractor, even qualitative predictions are impossible. "The repeatability of an experiment gets thrown into question," Ott says. The problem is rooted in the way a chaotic system determines which attractor to follow. The initial conditions that control the choice are said to be located in a basin of attraction. Ott and Sommerer have spoiled the party by showing that a basin may be rather leaky: it may have "holes" that make it impossible to predict which attractor the system will follow. Building on earlier mathematical work, the physicists used a computer to conduct numerical experiments in which a particle moving on a frictional surface is occasionally pushed. Consequently, the particle could begin moving either periodically or sporadically. The researchers found that even for this fairly simple system they could not determine which of the two attractors the particle would chase, because one basin is riddled with pieces of the other basin. in fact, every area in one basin, no matter how small, contained pieces of the other basin within it. "Hence, arbitrarily small changes can cause the system to go to a completely different attractor," Ott remarks. The only way to guarantee an outcome is not to have any error or noise whatsoever-a practical impossibility for real systems. And, anyway, what kind of chaos would that be? Ott points out that the results differ from other forms of chaos in which the starting point straddles the boundary between two basins of attraction. In such borderline situations, one might be able to move the starting point away from the boundary so that the attractor can be predicted. The same cannot be done for systems that have riddled basins, because no region is free of holes. "You're always on the borderline," Ott explains.

I just cannot see how or why Hard Determinism can be such an attractive philosophy when it has so many weaknesses and obvious flaws. Randomness and chance are such a large part of our lives that it cannot be ruled out, done away with or ignored so easily.

Determinism may be theoretically possible in Classical physics; but, in the light of Relativity and Quantum Dynamics it just does not hold.

If I were Ahnimus, I would love you for your brain.

Hehee.

Ahnimus wrote:

I don't recall the scientist in question suggesting that randomness has anything to do with the brain.

Then I might have been imprecise. I meant in line in that the element of free will may be very small. The randomness is arguments against hard determinism. I may have mixed them a bit more up than I should.

Keep in mind that I said determinism is proven, not hard determinism. But since free-will hasn't a leg to stand on, that makes hard determinism all the more believable.

By using the term determinism in the way you usually do around here, it is pretty clear that you mean hard determinism most of the time when you say determinism. If you didn't just there, then I dont have that much of an issue with it. Although I feel that saying that causality is proven would be a lot more precise and less prone to be misunderstood. You seem to be oblivious to the connotations connected to the term determinism throughout the history of science and science philosophy, and this furthers misunderstanding.

And an extreme position is not proven or corroborated by the unlikelyhood of it's other extreme. (especially since we construct the extremes in question most of the time) That's how creationists argue. If only the current scientific theory can be doubted, then the bible is right... So the unlikeliness of the total free will, does not support the hard determinism. Water not being cold, does not make it warm. (not to mention them being qualitative judgements, such as most of our concepts)
Evidence for some determinism would be the right way to say it, and I wouldn't disagree.

You can't provide evidence of a truly random event in nature. Try.

Which was my point. Science can only prove things that aren't. Doesn't mean randomness does not or cannot exist. There is a clear difference between "can't see or find" and "doesn't exist". Science would be about the former. You can as little assume that randomness doesn't exist, as you can that it does. That also goes for free will and determinism. It is science philosophy because frankly, it is beyond science today to determine it. A posititon can be assumed, certainly. There are theories to exclude randomness, sure. Proven beyond doubt and generally accepted? No.

Science is also about reduction. But in reducing, you simplify and thus excludes. Science assumes that nothing important is lost on the way, and for many uses this might be so. However, if the big picture is to be considered, one must have in mind all the reduction that has taken place, and the easiest way out is adding "random" which essentially means "factors we dont know anything about" or "things we cut out, that now must be put back in somehow".

My argument with you is largely that I think you are going a bit further than the evidence really warrants when it comes to determinism. Often, if you quote scientific work, the scientists in question usually treat it more conservatively, and less conclusive than your claims, even if they do give some support for your position. Also, you sometimes seem unaware that what you consider a purely scientific position, is often an ideological and philosophical position as well.

But if you are not claiming hard determinism, then you are actually leaving room for free will, and you dont seem to accept that at all.

Peace
Dan

Ahnimus wrote:

I'm not leaving room for Free-Will, Dan. I can't see it being possible and as I said, it doesn't have a leg to stand on. So I can't take it seriously.

My only problem with the concept is it's influence on social policy and the thought processes of the members of society.

Ultimate moral responsibility placed on the individual human, is a staple in our society and the most prevelant religions, the Abrahamic faiths.

I agree with 't Hooft, it's flimsy. But worse than that, it's transparent, it can not and never will be seen by it's own definition. It's on par with God.

Well, then you are on about hard determinism. Simple as that. And then all my reservations against it applies.

As for your motive here, I sympathize with it, and I too think too much emphasis is put on the individual at times. I am a socialist through and through and seek bigger solutions apart from punishing individuals.

But a modicum of free will is not on par with God. Free Will as the opposite to Hard Determinism is. And it is kindof paradoxical that you refuse any will at all, but use it in a sort of activism against what you see as unfair treatment. Do you not see the paradox in your own position there? Action as an illusion, while advocating action? According to hard determinism, everything happens as it must, so you advocating, and who will listen, who will not, and how they will interpret it is all determined 6 billion years ago. Such a position will not blame people needlessly, but rather push forward the "so what's the point" mentality which can be equally destructive as the "you're totally responsible" attitude. I support your cause here, but not your way of arguing.

Peace
Dan