|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 04/13/2005 : 17:49:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
It would not be outside the range of natural possibilities at all unless we are talking about a truly deterministic universe. Are we? Assuming we are, then it is just as impossible to roll anything other than a three on the ordinary die (through your rewind experiment) as it is to roll a 72.3 on the quantum die. If it is not a deterministic universe then the the experiment proves nothing since random variables, internal or external to the die, can affect the result. So something like the quantum die experiment, as unsatisfactory as it is, is all that we are left with.
Let me try again:
A person, given a choice between Coke and diet Coke, has a whole myriad of possible responses. From "Coke" to "diet Coke, please" to "you told me there was Sprite" to "I'm going somewhere else to get a Tab" to punching someone in the face to screaming "ooga booga" and ripping of his clothing. These - and uncounted others - are all possible.
The debate over free will is about how a person settles on one of the possible choices. If the universe is deterministic, and free will is an illusion, then no matter how many times we "rewind" and present the choice again, the result will always be the same. If the universe is non-deterministic (with bizzleque), or some magical unnatural free will exists, then the rewind experiment will result in different choices being made in some percentage of the attempts.
Thinking along these lines, I saw your quantum die as analogous to a human brain, just severely limited as to possible outcomes. A single roll of the die is analogous to making a single decision. Had this been your intent (which I now think it was not), then without free will, if the die comes up a 3 once, and we rewind that event, it'll always come up 3. With bizzleque or "real" free will, it'll come up 1, 2, 4, 5 or 6 some percentage of the time.
And so, squeezing Pepsi from a rock (or folding spacetime) was - to me - analogous to rolling a 72.3 on a six-sided die (quantum or not). In other words: simply and completely outside the range of possibilities, whether free will exists or not.
But, what did you really intend with the quantum die? I obviously still don't get it.quote:
I'm not sure why you are drawing a distinction between the external and internal environment of the brain. I would acknowledge that brains are not completely 'driven' by the external environment. I would say that they are entirely driven by the total environment. (both internal and external)
But the internal environment comes about due to the external environment, and nothing more, given a lack of free will.quote:
Absolutly. Although I somewhat doubt that it is totally thorough. As time goes on I believe that science will discover many (though perhaps not all) of the tricks that provide the illusion of free will.
Might be nice. Might not. The answers do have practical implications, and ignorance may indeed be bliss with this question. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2005 : 18:17:36 [Permalink]
|
While this is a tough subject to tackle, and many good points have been raised all 'round, I think we do possess Free Will and not simply the illusion of it.
If Free Will were simply an illusion, a deception, it is a very good one, so convincing that not once in the history of our species have we ever really doubted it. Those who believe that it is an illusion do so because they cannot account for it. But isn't that an argument from ignorance? I mean, shouldn't you have to prove it's an illusion when all our experience says otherwise, rather than the other way around?
Quantum uncertainty can't account for free will as has been pointed out. Whether you are destined to roll a 3 for all eternity or destined to roll a 1, 3, or 5 seems little different. All that would mean is that the choice is random, but it still isn't our choice, my choice. I mean, that's what this is all about, right? I believe I control my own actions and decisions (disregarding for now such things are unconscious impulses).
And I would say I do because I am conscious and self-aware. It seems that a consciousness is what makes Free Will possible. It is a will after all, a personal desire fulfilled through action. Truly free, unfettered choice flows from the will of a conscious mind. So the question is, how do quantum processes account for sentience? I don't think we know quite yet, but therein lies the answer to this riddle.
If Free Will is an illusion, then it is really consciousness that's the illusion, and I don't see that as very likely.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 04/13/2005 18:38:43 |
|
|
|
bloody_peasant
Skeptic Friend
USA
139 Posts |
Posted - 04/14/2005 : 05:58:57 [Permalink]
|
H.H.
quote:
If Free Will were simply an illusion, a deception, it is a very good one, so convincing that not once in the history of our species have we ever really doubted it.
Actually there is a whole philosophy that denies Free Will completely in any form (see the link on pure determinism, which started this thread). So I think its safe to say that people have safely doubted it throughout history. Beyond that there are many other variations ranging from some sort of mystical Free Will to what is called soft Determinism as the excellent wikipedia article provided by dv82matt pointed out.
quote:
But isn't that an argument from ignorance? I mean, shouldn't you have to prove it's an illusion when all our experience says otherwise, rather than the other way around?
To me the claim that there is something there beyond the biological brain requires evidence. Just because many people have assumed something to be true and claim to experience it is definitely not the proper way to determine if something is true or not (e.g. the God claim comes quickly to mind).
As of now, we know of no property of physics, chemistry, or the biological mind that allows us to escape determinism or random indeterminism whichever the case may be. Thus to me it would appear that Free Will in that context is based purely on anecdotal evidence. Also claiming that something exists above and beyond what we know biologically possible seems to require evidence beyond anecdotal. I would also say that there is evidence for our appearance of Free Will to be an illusion (see below).
quote:
Whether you are destined to roll a 3 for all eternity or destined to roll a 1, 3, or 5 seems little different. All that would mean is that the choice is random, but it still isn't our choice, my choice. I mean, that's what this is all about, right?
Yes this is definitely one of the points being debated and I think this also, if I'm not correct, what Dave W's fizzleque is basically about. This kind of free will caused by random quantum events. Although I think he also has postulated an emergent property of the human brain that allows it to escape the limits of its biochemistry.
quote:
And I would say I do because I am conscious and self-aware. It seems that a consciousness is what makes Free Will possible. It is a will after all, a personal desire fulfilled through action. Truly free, unfettered choice flows from the will of a conscious mind.
Then the real question in my mind becomes how does a biological entity with a brain, that functions by physics & chemistry, create choices outside of the constraints of physics and chemistry? I think you are right in questioning random quantum events equating to Free Will as this would just be another chemical based factor effecting our final decisions. It would rule out strict determinism but replace it with random indeterminism. Not exactly Free Will in my book.
However to establish a Free Will beyond this is to postulate either something supernatural or something within biology that is completely unknown at this point. This may be similar to Dave W's proposal on some sort of emergent property from the human brain. However I find no evidence for such a property so I am more inclined to tentatively take the more parsimonious explanation that there is no Free Will or free will and that our choices are either controlled by determinism or random indeterminism.
quote:
If Free Will is an illusion, then it is really consciousness that's the illusion, and I don't see that as very likely.
I guess that depends on how you define consciousness. If it is merely awareness of surroundings and ourselves then it becomes just one more environmental factor in determining our choices. There would be different levels of consciousness depending upon on mental states or our physical conditions (e.g. a blind person would have a different kind of awareness then a seeing one, a drunk person does as well).
Ok I think I will break off here and post what I think is evidence for a purely biological brain with no true Free Will in my next post since this one has gotten longer than I intended :>. I also have some questions I think would be good to ponder. Coming soon... |
|
|
|
bloody_peasant
Skeptic Friend
USA
139 Posts |
Posted - 04/14/2005 : 06:38:24 [Permalink]
|
Ok to get some more ideas rolling I would like to pose some questions.
If there really is some sort of free will who and what possesses it?
Does a newborn infant or a young child possess it?
If not then does it slowly accumulate as their brains develop or does it appear all at once?
Does a severely mentally handicapped person have it?
What about animals? Does a chimp possess it? What about an ant or a dog or a cow?
Does it apply to anything with awareness of its surroundings which would imply plants even?
Does it apply only to things with a central nervous system? If so how complex of a system is required before free will is obtained?
Typically we apply less and less free will if any at all to things with less complex nervous systems. Human -> young child -> Chimp -> human infant/handicapped individual -> dog/cow -> ant. Usually we apply no free will to things like plants, fungi, or bacteria. People who tend towards a supernatural explanation of free will (e.g. souls) will probably claim only humans have it and its there upon conception or birth, but I'm not really interested in discussing those type of claims.
To me this points towards an illusion of free will as brain complexity grows. By illusion I mean the factors involved in making the decision, starting the action, etc. become so complex that to us it appears to be done solely by the will of the actor. This is true even of ants for as you watch an ant scurry about can you say why it went left or right? Sometimes yes, but other times it will appear to be totally random or to the sole will of the actor.
However when we get down to things on a much smaller reduced scale, such as single celled organisms and specifically with mechanisms we understand we can predict its actions like clockwork. Chemical X contacts cell surface Y with properties Y' and under conditions Y'' and action Z starts. I am unaware of any action within a single celled organism that steps outside of this simple sequence, although obviously the steps may differ and be more complex and chains of events are often linked.
Now of course we are multicellular organisms composed of trillions of cells that are differentiated to perform different functions and usually collaborating with each other. Our brains and nervous system are also composed of cells. These cells seem to operate under the same conditions and perform the same types of steps of sequences that my single celled organism does. They seem to be tied to the same constraints as my E.coli friend, but they are organized in a huge large complex network. One that is difficult to imagine.
Ruling out supernatural explanations for now does this huge complex network generate the illusion of free will (kinda like as we say in IT "security by obscurity") or does it generate some emergent property allowing true free will and breaking the bonds of the mechanistic cellular reactions? To me it points to the former and I will give what I think is some of the best evidence we have on the issue, which I admit is quite scant.
The fact that our "Free Will" (and our conscious) can be altered by things like drugs, psychosis, brain damage, etc. sometimes drastically is strong evidence that our free will is an illusion and our actions are firmly tied in the biology of the brain. People who have had some forms of brain damage take on completely different personalities and perform actions totally different than they would have "chosen" before. People effected by drugs or forms of mental psychosis often commit actions that seem against their "Free Will". We understand that these effects, whether drug, accident, or internally induced, are rooted in biological and chemical effects on the nervous system and brain.
These to me are strong evidence that free will is an illusion created by the sheer complexity of the brain. However I could see where the person proposing an emergent property of the brain based on some unknown biology (such as Dave W's emergent proposal) could claim that any effect on the biological brain would also effect this property and I agree. However I don't know of any evidence for this emergent property beyond anecdotal while there appears to lots of evidence for the purely biological mechanistic explanation. But then again maybe I'm being too much of a reductionist. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 04/14/2005 : 10:11:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Let me try again:
A person, given a choice between Coke and diet Coke, has a whole myriad of possible responses. From "Coke" to "diet Coke, please" to "you told me there was Sprite" to "I'm going somewhere else to get a Tab" to punching someone in the face to screaming "ooga booga" and ripping of his clothing. These - and uncounted others - are all possible.
All these options are only possible in the sense that we cannot predict which are possible and which are not. The human mind is too complex for us to reduce the list of possible choices.quote:
The debate over free will is about how a person settles on one of the possible choices. If the universe is deterministic, and free will is an illusion, then no matter how many times we "rewind" and present the choice again, the result will always be the same. If the universe is non-deterministic (with bizzleque), or some magical unnatural free will exists, then the rewind experiment will result in different choices being made in some percentage of the attempts.
Thinking along these lines, I saw your quantum die as analogous to a human brain, just severely limited as to possible outcomes. A single roll of the die is analogous to making a single decision. Had this been your intent (which I now think it was not), then without free will, if the die comes up a 3 once, and we rewind that event, it'll always come up 3. With bizzleque or "real" free will, it'll come up 1, 2, 4, 5 or 6 some percentage of the time.
Actually that was my intent, but the point I think you may be missing is that regardless of whether there is free will or not, in a nondeterministic universe quantum events are truly random, so even if the die comes up as a three the first time, on rewinding the event there is no particular reason to expect it to come up as a three the next time.quote:
And so, squeezing Pepsi from a rock (or folding spacetime) was - to me - analogous to rolling a 72.3 on a six-sided die (quantum or not). In other words: simply and completely outside the range of possibilities, whether free will exists or not.
Sorry to have missed your point here. I agree that it's completely outside the range of natural possibilities, nevertheless it seems clear to me that something analogous to the quantum die scenario is clearly implicit in the definition of free will given by bloody_peasant.
On a related note, I just thought that I'd point out that, except in cases where I've specified otherwise, I've used the term 'free will' in this sense.quote:
But the internal environment comes about due to the external environment, and nothing more, given a lack of free will.
May I assume that we are still talking about a nondeterministic universe? In this case quantum events that occur within the brain are not determined by the external environment.quote:
quote:
Absolutly. Although I somewhat doubt that it is totally thorough. As time goes on I believe that science will discover many (though perhaps not all) of the tricks that provide the illusion of free will.
Might be nice. Might not. The answers do have practical implications, and ignorance may indeed be bliss with this question.
Well I fully agree with you here. Progress marches on though. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 04/14/2005 : 12:52:30 [Permalink]
|
As a follow up on determinism and free will, I found this page which puts forward an arguement for free will and determinism.
Although I think it argues for something other than what I would call 'free will', other than that it seems convincing.
edited to add that I only read the first bit called "THE FREE-WILL VERSUS DETERMINISM PSEUDO-DICHOTOMY" so my comment only applies to that. |
| Edited by - dv82matt on 04/14/2005 16:22:47 |
|
|
|
bloody_peasant
Skeptic Friend
USA
139 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2005 : 06:18:20 [Permalink]
|
Thanks for the article Matt,
I have to admit I've never had a class in philosophy nor have I ever studied historical philosophers and their philosophies to any extent so I am at best winging it. This gave some good overview of some historical and maybe contemporary thoughts on the discussion we have been having.
Also I would like to pose one more hypothetical question, more of just a mental exercise of possibilities as I know the real answer is obviously we don't know.
Do you think we will ever be able to create a computer/robot that has what is equivalent to Free Will?
|
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2005 : 09:42:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by bloody_peasant
Do you think we will ever be able to create a computer/robot that has what is equivalent to Free Will?
Do I think there will ever be computers that achieve what we call consciousness...YES!...(and then they will surpass us). I think the likelihood of this happening in most of our lifetimes is very, very high; but, I don't think having a truly "Free Will" is possible, but I could be wrong. |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2005 : 15:14:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by bloody_peasant
Do you think we will ever be able to create a computer/robot that has what is equivalent to Free Will?
Hmmmm... well notwithstanding that I believe free will is an illusion, I'm willing to stick my neck out.
I predict that a computer/robot will surpass every aspect of human intelligence within fifteen years.
I could be wrong, but Oh my God! I could be right. |
|
|
|
bloody_peasant
Skeptic Friend
USA
139 Posts |
Posted - 04/18/2005 : 07:30:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Do I think there will ever be computers that achieve what we call consciousness...YES!
I guess if you equate consciousness with being aware of your surroundings then I would say that we already have such creations. Being a very amateur robot hobbyist I am aware of quite a few different types of sensors we can use to make the robot's brains aware of its surroundings (from infra red eyes, to feelers for sense of touch and gyros for sense of balance or speakers for sense of hearing). Now our main limitation is how sophisticated our brains' programs are in reacting to these stimuli and how much of it we can shove on to a ROM chip and process in a limited sequential CPU (or at least that's my limitations with my very limited budget >:-D.) |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2005 : 14:46:09 [Permalink]
|
This may not be exactly relevant to the issue of whether computers can possess the equivalent of what we call free will, but I found it interesting and I think that it has implications for machine based free will.
http://www.transhumanist.com/volume1/moravec.htm |
|
|
|
bloody_peasant
Skeptic Friend
USA
139 Posts |
Posted - 04/20/2005 : 07:05:10 [Permalink]
|
By chance did this paper come from the random computer paper site? >:-D
Edited to add
Great article though I did find this line a little troubling
quote:
By our estimate, today's very biggest supercomputers are within a factor of a hundred of having the power to mimic a human mind. Their successors a decade hence will be more than powerful enough. Yet, it is unlikely that machines costing tens of millions of dollars will be wasted doing what any human can do, when they could instead be solving urgent physical and mathematical problems nothing else can touch. Machines with human-like performance will make economic sense only when they cost less than humans, say when their "brains" cost about $1,000. When will that day arrive?
Hmmm when computers become as powerful as humans and much cheaper what happens to us >:-D
Nice also to know that my PC is as sharp as a good insect or spider too :> |
| Edited by - bloody_peasant on 04/20/2005 07:19:31 |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 04/25/2005 : 19:13:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Hawks
Actually, all living things would be expected to produce at least as many offspring as can be supported or more. Any descendants of an organism that reproduces more than it's siblings will soon be more numerous than the siblings descendants. When resources get sparse, a higher proportion of fast breeders compared to slow breeders will survive (assuming slow breeders have no other selective advantage). Therefore, if you're reproducing below your potential, you would - evolutionarily - be selected against.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply by Dave W
Bearing in mind that most animals don't provide for their young at all after birth, I'd like you to name one - besides humans - which regularly attempts to rear more children than it can feed in any given environment. That was, after all, the point of contention there: to always have more kids than you can feed, not just "when resources get sparse." It's an idea of forcing the "sparse resources" scenario.
For example, if some hypothetical parent birds can only reliably meet the daily nutritional requirements of two hatchlings, then having three (or more) of them immediately puts at least one chick (and possibly all three) at a disadvantage compared to another pair of the same birds who only had two chicks to feed from the start.
Note that the level of actual available resources here isn't mentioned, because the parents only have so-many hours a day to work with, and they must also feed themselves for their offspring to have any chance of survival. That's what's providing the limiting factor, not food availability overall. (Obviously, if big juicy cicadas are lining up to be dinner, this would add a new twist to the equation, but I'm talking about averages, here.)
So, does there exist a species in which childhood malnutrition is the norm due to parents having too many kids to be able to support them all? Or does this mostly happen when a species normally has so-many kids in a brood, and resources get tight all of a sudden?
Let me first apologise for taking so long to reply. I have simply been unable to do so any sooner (I had no "free will" to do so?). Let me also apologise for bringing something up that was not really the gist of this thread.
I think you'd be lucky finding any species that always has more kids than it can feed. This would imply (1) that the parent(s) would know how much food will be available (in the future) when they have to feed their kids and/or (2) that the environment in which they live is constant regarding food resources. This will not happen. Food availability will change between breeding seasons. Whether or not this depends on the actual existence of that food or the difficulties in acquiring it is not really important.
If there exists a species in which childhood malnutrition is the norm, I don't know, but that was never the issue. The issue was whether more offspring were produced than could be supported. This does not imply that the parents will care equally for all offspring or that the "nutritional status" of all offspring has to be equal. Offspring often compete among themselves for food brought home by the parents.
The blue-footed boobie (I sure hope I spelled that correctly) is a good example of an animal that regularly attempts to raise more chicks than it can support. It always lays two eggs, which hatch roughly a week (I seem to remember) from eachother. If it's a really good year foodwise, both chicks may survive. If it's a bad year, the smaller chick will be pushed out of the nest (by its sibling actually), and only the older chick will survive. In between these extremes of food availability, the older chick may actually voluntarily reduce its food intake to help its younger sibling survive (whether of not they have malnutrition can be questioned, but the older sibling eats less than it potentially could).
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 04/25/2005 : 22:47:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I think you'd be lucky finding any species that always has more kids than it can feed.
It's not so much about always overproducing offspring, but about the capability of doing so.
From the least complex microorganism to the most complex multicellular animals, this capability exists.
Take mice, for example. If you removed predation and other inhospitable environmental conditions, provided exactly enough food to feed 100 mice/day (and maintain the 100 in perfect nutrition), you'd soon have 200 mice. Eventually the numbers would balance out, but you'd still end up with a steady population in excess of 100, pushing the limits of the food supply to the max sustainable population with just enough food to each mouse to maintain them in a state capable of reproducing.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Sc0tt1e
New Member
1 Post |
Posted - 05/06/2005 : 20:06:50 [Permalink]
|
I think of myself as a pragmatic determinist. In the practical world (ignoring subatomic) every effect can be seen as a resulting vector of a number of causes. Recognizing that a result is the vector of multiple effects helps model “free choice” and “personal responsibility”.
For example; You are one of a set of identical twins raised together and for the sake of argument had such similar life experiences that On the Tuesday following the first Monday of November 2004 you both had virtually identical pressures when it came time to create a chad for president of the good ol US of A. But just moments before you exercise your civic duty, someone whispers in your ear that he will personally murder your family this very night and later after you had time to agonize over the consequences of your actions he is going to kill you. All this unless you cast your vote for GWB.
Luckily Your brother cancelled your vote. Is this free will? Is this what we mean by choice? Did one of you “fail” in your personally responsibility? No, you have had a new vector pressure added and your vote was determined.
Observation suggest that some vector pressures do include peer pressure, fear of punishment and expectation of rewards therefore it can be reasonable for society to levy some amount of personal responsibility. BUT we must remember that there is nothing magic about free choice and sometimes society would be better off consternating of removing some of the other vector pressures.. ie instead of punishing you for voting for the “wrong” guy perhaps we should remove your tormentor. |
Sc0tt1e |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
