Determinism vs. Free Will

[ciaza]

I remember watching this debate mostly from the side-lines once in the Smash 64 Social thread, while ballin was actively apart of it. I thought I might revive it here, as the DH hasn't seen many new threads for a while.

The topic says it all. However I do realise there are alternate viewpoints, and I do not want this thread to be limited to only 2 stances. If you are a compatibilist for example don't be afraid to hold back.

I would contend that the universe is goverened by causal determinism. Everything has a cause and effect relationship, and as such free will technically does not exist. However, I would also maintain that simply because this is true does not mean that people are destined to float through life, knowing that they can't change anything. It's hard for me to put into words. It might not be all that wise to lie in bed all day and go: "well the universe and my life is pre-determined so staying in bed all day was meant to be", for example.

Urgh, anyway, as ACROSTIC might say this might better be suited for the User Blogs or something, but I'm adamant that this turn into debate. When if some replies start coming, this thing will hopefully get rolling.

 

[ballin4life]

Oh man, here we go again...

So what does "everything has a cause and effect relationship" mean and why do you think that is the case?

 

[ciaza]

I thought you would be thrilled.

By everything has a cause and effect relationship, I mean that nothing happens without reason. You eat because you're hungry, you exercise to keep fit, you frequent smashboards.com because it's a totally rad place to hang out. It's a domino chain.

I believe this is the case because I have never empirically verified a completely random action. That is, an action that had no cause or motive behind it. Not even that one time when I was home alone and decided to do a backflip. I just wanted to see if I could do a backflip. For the record I couldn't. Not only that, but a world without a cause-and-effect relationship would seemingly be chaotic, everyone doing random actions without reason.

I would also maintain that there be only one chain of events that could happen. I'll bring up Laplace's Demon. This demon knows the position of every single particle in the Universe at any given time. As such, it can predict what will happen in the future if it knows where those particles are going.

 

[asianaussie]

Now...I already posted my reaction to this when ballin jokingly brought it up in some other thread and got infracted because A$ hates Misaka Mikoto or something, but this is my current view on this issue:

I'm all for soft determinism, because I'm weak and don't like to take stances.

 

[Sucumbio]

I believe this is the case because I have never empirically verified a completely random action.

The Feynman Double Slit experiment is a good example of what I believe you'd accept as empirically verified randomness, even though random isn't the correct word to use for what's happening in the experiment.

from Interference of individual particles:

This experimental fact is highly reproducible, and the mathematics of quantum mechanics (see below) allows us to predict the exact probability of an electron striking the screen at any particular point. However, the electrons do not arrive at the screen in any predictable order. In other words, knowing where all the previous electrons appeared on the screen and in what order tells us nothing about where any future electron will hit, even though the probabilities at specific points can be calculated.[14] Thus, we have the appearance of a seemingly causeless selection event in a highly orderly and predictable formulation of the interference pattern.

Now I understand what you're saying in terms of cause/effect relationships, but unless we're talking on the quantum level we're not really talking about the same thing. It's obvious that decision making is cause/effect related. I want ice cream, I eat it, I get brain freeze. Why did I want ice cream? Some decisions are arrived at through subconscious suggestion, too... there isn't always a clear cut Why behind every What.

But there are too many instances in nature and in the universe, including the original big bang, which rule out the possibility that some things really are just totally random, and it's quantum mechanics that leads us to this conclusion.

So what this implies is that within certain subsets of reality, we are stuck to a determined path, but in a broader set of variables, we aren't.

The idea of Free Will however, is ... well, childish in most terms. Making a decision based on choices is an illusion of "free will" it's not actually free will. It's just choice making. What hinders us from true free will is the fact that we can only ever witness or understand one outcome of the choices we make. I may have the right to decide to turn left instead of right, but ultimately I'm either going to only turn left, or turn right. Even if in another parallel or alternate reality/universe the opposite choice is made, -I- can only witness one of the 2 choices.

 

[Battlecow]

I made my point back in the social thread. Don't really wanna type it all out again.

If ballin' says something NEW, I'll respond, though.

 

[ballin4life]

The idea of Free Will however, is ... well, childish in most terms. Making a decision based on choices is an illusion of "free will" it's not actually free will. It's just choice making. What hinders us from true free will is the fact that we can only ever witness or understand one outcome of the choices we make. I may have the right to decide to turn left instead of right, but ultimately I'm either going to only turn left, or turn right. Even if in another parallel or alternate reality/universe the opposite choice is made, -I- can only witness one of the 2 choices.

That's not what people mean by free will though. If you look in the past you can say that only 1 choice was made, but "in the moment" there is free will. Basically, I would just frame it by saying that human actions can't be predicted even with perfect knowledge of the situation.

 

[Sucumbio]

I get what you mean by in the moment... the part after that seems strange though. Can one not predict what someone will do in a given circumstance, and even be right more often than not? I know it wouldn't be 100 percent all the time, but once you get good at it, I'm sure you'd improve your chances of being right.

 

[ballin4life]

I get what you mean by in the moment... the part after that seems strange though. Can one not predict what someone will do in a given circumstance, and even be right more often than not? I know it wouldn't be 100 percent all the time, but once you get good at it, I'm sure you'd improve your chances of being right.

Determinism says you will be right 100% of the time though.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Determinism says you will be right 100% of the time though.

Given all of the relevant information and the ability to properly interpret it.

Interestingly enough, scientific theories such as Quantum mechanics have a limited application in this debate. This is due to the fact that these theories do not apply on all scales and circumstances. So while you're empirical randomness on quantum scales is all well and good, how do we know it will apply on classical scales (the one's we are used to)? The fact is that we have not observed quantum mechanics on anything much larger than a buckyball (C-60), so we know that this randomness seems to disappear on anything larger than a big molecule. We are not quantum objects and although quantum mechanics applies to our constituent parts, it doesn't manifest itself when we view ourselves as a whole. So what does this mean? Quantum mechanics probably isn't evidence either way on the subject of free-will.

 

[jaswa]

I get what you mean by in the moment... the part after that seems strange though. Can one not predict what someone will do in a given circumstance, and even be right more often than not? I know it wouldn't be 100 percent all the time, but once you get good at it, I'm sure you'd improve your chances of being right.

People's decisions are bounded by nature and nurture. But that doesn't mean that they can't freely move within that boundary, or have a will to do something completely different.

Example:

I go to the ice cream shop to get ice cream which only sells vanilla, chocolate and strawberry. It is in my nature to like the taste of ice-cream which is why I'm there in the first place, and I chose vanilla. I was completely free to make the choice of any 3 flavours within the circumstance.

A few things that make this interesting: my 'strongest desire' was to have vanilla, so is our strongest desire always the one that leads to our choice. If so we could define all our choices as determined by our strongest desire.

At the same time when asked if what flavour of icecream I want, I 'will' to go bungee jumping. This doesn't mean that I do go there, as my nurture (environment) doesn't permit me to do so, but nothing stops me from wanting to do it.

My nature made me want to express myself in this post, and my nurture forced me to do it using written text, not spoken word. I still chose all the words I wanted within my nature/nurture bounds though.

(sorry if it sounds a bit detached)

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

People's decisions are bounded by nature and nurture. But that doesn't mean that they can't freely move within that boundary, or have a will to do something completely different.

Interesting...

The question is, how restrictive is that boundary? It's all well and good to say there is some semblance of free-will within us but it is bounded by external and internal circumstances (which is basically what nature and nurture seem to mean in this context), but if you're not going to specify the extent to which the circumstances influence us and impede on our ability to act freely, we can't really go anywhere. And what's to say that internal circumstances and external circumstances don't completely close-off our ability to act freely?

 

[AltF4]

How can we, even in principle, discover an answer to this question? It seems to me that the best you can ever come up with is: "The concept of free will is utterly incompatible with everything we know about how the universe works."

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

How can we, even in principle, discover an answer to this question? It seems to me that the best you can ever come up with is: "The concept of free will is utterly incompatible with everything we know about how the universe works."

Yeah. And coupled with the fact that this debate is essentially pointless...

 

[Sucumbio]

My nature made me want to express myself in this post, and my nurture forced me to do it using written text, not spoken word. I still chose all the words I wanted within my nature/nurture bounds though.

Did you really choose all the words yourself? Did you not have a selection of words to choose -from- and decided which ones to use? This clarification may seem silly, but it goes towards my original statement:

So what this implies is that within certain subsets of reality, we are stuck to a determined path, but in a broader set of variables, we aren't.

Basically both Determinism and Free Will exist simultaneously. The only question that remains is how Free is our (humans') Free Will; how detached from any truly deterministic path is it... to me it's actually quite limited when compared to the behavior of quantum particles. The argument that in the moment of decision we are totally free to choose, seems inaccurate, because in most moments of decision, our choices as we perceive them are based on a subset of beliefs, notifications and observations that we've already experienced, which lead to that decision and its choices, and this implies a contextual connecting of the dots, so to speak.

In fact I'd be hard pressed to think of a single decision I've ever actually made that didn't first exist as a precursor to that decision by means of my environment. I can go further to say that each decision making moment in our lives is inevitable, and that the choice we ultimately make is also as inevitable, but this rubs fans of Free Will the wrong way, because it suggests absolute Determinism, and people don't like to think of themselves as trapped by Fate. However I rather see this not as some diabolical reality where nothing has a purpose or point, but simply the way Time works in our Universe, as perceived by us. Remember, in quantum theory no state can be proven until observed. So too I think Time exists, unable to even be experienced until we observe its passing.

 

[ballin4life]

How can we, even in principle, discover an answer to this question? It seems to me that the best you can ever come up with is: "The concept of free will is utterly incompatible with everything we know about how the universe works."

Don't really see how this is the case at all. Free will seems more likely than hypothesizing that there are enough hidden variables to determine what a human will do in any situation.

 

[AltF4]

Free will seems more likely than hypothesizing that there are enough hidden variables to determine what a human will do in any situation.

I honestly don't know what you mean by that. Perhaps you could elaborate.


I'd like to start with a quote from the Watchmen (Movie. I haven't read the comics)

Miracles by their definition are meaningless, only what can happen does happen.

To illustrate why Free Will is impossible*, just try defining it. (Without punting into simply using other synonyms like "choice" or "agency".) In order to make it a coherent idea, it has to violate causality. If "you" are entirely contained within your physical body, it's trivial to see why Free Will is impossible. Humans are just "matter in motion" as some choose to say. Not fundamentally different than rocks rolling down a hill, though greater in complexity.

No, you have to make an appeal to some supernatural force to accomplish Free Will. You have to assume that you have a "mind" which exists outside the physical universe. Any such interactions will by definition violate causality. (Or else this mind-realm is simply another location within our own universe, and you have the same situation as above)

And I tend to reject these silly "supernatural" explanations for reasons put so succinctly in the quote from The Watchmen. Once you say that something's "supernatural" I just stop listening. It's a synonym for "nonsensical".


* = Impossible is a strong word, I know. Here I mean it as shorthand for "violates everything we know about how the universe works".

 

[ballin4life]

I honestly don't know what you mean by that. Perhaps you could elaborate.


I'd like to start with a quote from the Watchmen (Movie. I haven't read the comics)



To illustrate why Free Will is impossible*, just try defining it. (Without punting into simply using other synonyms like "choice" or "agency".) In order to make it a coherent idea, it has to violate causality. If "you" are entirely contained within your physical body, it's trivial to see why Free Will is impossible. Humans are just "matter in motion" as some choose to say. Not fundamentally different than rocks rolling down a hill, though greater in complexity.

No, you have to make an appeal to some supernatural force to accomplish Free Will. You have to assume that you have a "mind" which exists outside the physical universe. Any such interactions will by definition violate causality. (Or else this mind-realm is simply another location within our own universe, and you have the same situation as above)

And I tend to reject these silly "supernatural" explanations for reasons put so succinctly in the quote from The Watchmen. Once you say that something's "supernatural" I just stop listening. It's a synonym for "nonsensical".


* = Impossible is a strong word, I know. Here I mean it as shorthand for "violates everything we know about how the universe works".

I don't see what the problem is with "matter in motion" and free will. I think it's pretty clear that a "mind" exists - I think therefore I am etc. Perhaps this mind is merely the product of things in the physical world, but I don't see why that prohibits free will at all.

As for what I meant, do you accept determinism? That would imply that given perfect knowledge of the universe, you could predict exactly what will happen next. I think there's reason to believe this is true for simple experiments like dropping a rock out of a tower. But I see no reason to believe that this is true for complicated experiments involving humans. We often cannot predict what humans will do. So I don't think there is evidence for the claim that we would be able to predict exactly what humans will do IF ONLY we had the perfect knowledge. It's saying that there are tons of hidden variables that can explain all the complexity of human behavior.

I think your problem here might lie in "everything we KNOW about how the universe works". Because it looks to me like you're just assuming determinism there. I'd actually say that the existence of the mind is MUCH more basic knowledge about how the universe works. After all, all your observations and knowledge about the universe come to you via your mind.

 

[AltF4]

Determinism like Laplace envisioned, where you can perfectly predict all future states of the universe by having knowledge of its current state and all its laws, has been dismantled by modern Quantum Mechanics and Relativity. That's not how the universe works. There's no such thing as a single universal "state". (Relativity) And it is impossible in principle (not just in practice) to know both the velocity and position of any given particle. (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle)

So no, determinism as people usually think of it (the Laplacian type) is quite definitively incorrect.


As for why you can't have Free Will in a purely physical world... I can't help but think that's obvious. Try defining Free Will for me. I think you'll see that the only way to do it is to violate causality.

 

[ballin4life]

What is causality and why do you believe it?

If you ask me free will just means human actions aren't determined.

Also there is some way to reconcile quantum mechanism with determinism IIRC but I don't remember it off the top of my head.

 

[AltF4]

Causality is this: Wikipedia Linkl I mean it in a strict scientific sense. It isn't something that "I believe", as if it were something contentious and debatable. As the article explains, causality is a fundamental assumption to all of natural science.

It has direct implications into other fields like Information Theory, where information about the universe cannot be lost. (See Hawking's A Brief History of Time for lots of information about that.) And essentially every other fundamental conservation law, too. Including matter, energy, etc...

Put simply, without causality, things can just happen for no reason. Which is to say that there is no such thing as natural law. Things just happen, and there is no rhyme or reason to it at all. This is obviously contrary to our experience of the world, and is also not a productive working assumption. So it is rejected outright.

(For the same reason we may not be able to PROVE that we're not just minds in the jar of a mad scientist, but we work under the assumption that it's not true.)

It is common for scientific theories to be rejected on the basis of violating causality. If you want to show that a theory is false, you show that it violates causality. (Just like in mathematics where you show that a statement is false by demonstrating that it leads to a contradiction.)


Now then...

Your definition of Free Will obviously and blatantly violates causality by its very wording. "human actions aren't determined." Nothing determines them. Which is to say that human actions are without cause. They "just happen" for no reason at all.


EDIT: About Determinism vs Quantum Mechanics. QM only disproved the naive version of determinism envisioned by Laplace. (Link here) You can still imagine a KIND of determinism left over. Quantum Mechanics doesn't just say "Everything is random, lol!" It just changes our view of what a fundamental element of the universe is. It's not a particle (a discrete indivisible ball) but rather a probability distribution cloud. The actions and interactions of these clouds are then described precisely by Quantum Mechanics.

 

[Dre89]

Put simply, without causality, things can just happen for no reason. Which is to say that there is no such thing as natural law. Things just happen, and there is no rhyme or reason to it at all. This is obviously contrary to our experience of the world, and is also not a productive working assumption. So it is rejected outright.

Just a nitpick here, without causality nothing would exist. By your logic, "no causality"= nothingness= unbounded, random causality.

Also, saying human actions aren't determined isn't the same as saying they are completely random and have no reason/structure to them.

Just curious Alt, do you acknowledge a distinction between humans and robots? A robot is simply a chain of commands after receiving signals from its environment, acting upon them depending on its programming. Determinism pretty much says humans are like this too. However, surely Alt you will acknowledge that humans have a conscious mind, and we have a notion of "self", yet a robot does not. As I said before, it is simply a chain of commands.

Now if a human is simply a chain of cause-and-effects like the robot, that would mean that either the robot has a conscious mind too, or humans don't have a conscious mind.


On another note, Alt you acknoledge that if I can show that the mind is non-physical, free will becomes more probable than determinism correct? Well if I have a thought of an apple, I'm curious to know where in the physical world this thought exists. It isn't located in my brain- if you placed a camera in my skull you wouldn't see an image of an apple. I know you'll say it is a result of chemicals in my brain, but if everything is physical those chemicals would be the only thing that exist, not the image, unless you're going to say the image exists physically in some location.

 

[ballin4life]

Causality is this: Wikipedia Linkl I mean it in a strict scientific sense. It isn't something that "I believe", as if it were something contentious and debatable. As the article explains, causality is a fundamental assumption to all of natural science.

I've read that Wikipedia article several times. I still don't understand what people mean when they say causality. Please give a compact definition.

It'd be like me linking Wikipedia after you asked me to define free will. Wikipedia is obliged to go into all sorts of detail that we don't need and will just be confusing for our purposes.

It has direct implications into other fields like Information Theory, where information about the universe cannot be lost. (See Hawking's A Brief History of Time for lots of information about that.) And essentially every other fundamental conservation law, too. Including matter, energy, etc...

Put simply, without causality, things can just happen for no reason. Which is to say that there is no such thing as natural law. Things just happen, and there is no rhyme or reason to it at all. This is obviously contrary to our experience of the world, and is also not a productive working assumption. So it is rejected outright.

I'm confused. Who is to say that the natural law isn't "things can't happen for no reason except with humans" or some variation?

(For the same reason we may not be able to PROVE that we're not just minds in the jar of a mad scientist, but we work under the assumption that it's not true.)

Well, I always contend that we don't really work under this assumption, since as long as we don't find out that that's the case it won't matter.

It is common for scientific theories to be rejected on the basis of violating causality. If you want to show that a theory is false, you show that it violates causality. (Just like in mathematics where you show that a statement is false by demonstrating that it leads to a contradiction.)

I thought I remembered a chapter in the book "Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman" where the physicists accepted some theory that went against causality. I could be wrong though.

Now then...

Your definition of Free Will obviously and blatantly violates causality by its very wording. "human actions aren't determined." Nothing determines them. Which is to say that human actions are without cause. They "just happen" for no reason at all.

Well, since you haven't told me what causality means yet I can't really comment on this. But why can't you just say the human actions were caused by the human?

EDIT: About Determinism vs Quantum Mechanics. QM only disproved the naive version of determinism envisioned by Laplace. (Link here) You can still imagine a KIND of determinism left over. Quantum Mechanics doesn't just say "Everything is random, lol!" It just changes our view of what a fundamental element of the universe is. It's not a particle (a discrete indivisible ball) but rather a probability distribution cloud. The actions and interactions of these clouds are then described precisely by Quantum Mechanics.

Yeah it was something like that.

 

[AltF4]

Dre, you make it so hard to do these kinds of debates. I have to think you already know the answer to these silly questions. I mean, as a philosopher, you must have gone through this before. So I'm forced only to assume that you're asking me only in the hopes that I haven't, which is fundamentally dishonest.

OF COURSE, being able to imagine an apple doesn't necessitate the existence of the mind outside the body. Asking the question "where does the thought exist" is a nonsensical question not deserving of an answer. You might as well ask: "Where does green exist"? (Not things which are green, but green itself) Does this prove the existence of a Platonic world of Forms? No. It proves that English is stupid and capable of forming a sentence which sounds like a question but really isn't.

As for the robots, of course the strict answer is "I don't and can never know, not even in principle." But I can say for sure (as a computer scientist myself) that robots as they exist today are quite primitive. But to be fair, AI is a tough field and doesn't get a lot of respect. I see no reason why humans have to be inherently different than a sufficiently advanced robot.



Ballin:

First, you have to realize that causality is something which pertains only to fundamental constituents of the universe. You can't apply it to macro objects or events. ("That person punched me without cause!") It describes the universe as an enormous causal chain.

All actions are caused by actions at a time prior to it, and only in its immediate surrounding. (Principle of Locality) Though keep in mind that the universe is not a Euclidean space. (Relativity) So our concepts of near and far can get skewed.

Perhaps that helps? That was off the top of my head, not from a text book. So it surely can be made more precise.

I'm confused. Who is to say that the natural law isn't "things can't happen for no reason except with humans" or some variation?

To say that there is an exception to a law is to say that the law doesn't really exist.

Well, since you haven't told me what causality means yet I can't really comment on this. But why can't you just say the human actions were caused by the human?

This is exactly what I was warning about above. Causality does not directly apply to macro objects like "humans". You can't say that a human was the cause of anything (in this strict scientific meaning of causality). It's all at the subatomic level.

Your brain controls your body. Your brain is a collection of fundamental particles, each of which obey causality. Either they all keep obeying causality (like a robot or bunch of rolling rocks would) or else you violate causality.

 

[rvkevin]

What a coincidence: New IBM computer chip mimics the human brain.

Well if I have a thought of an apple, I'm curious to know where in the physical world this thought exists. It isn't located in my brain- if you placed a camera in my skull you wouldn't see an image of an apple.

If you were to ask the same of a computer you should easily see how childish this line of reasoning is. When you see an image of an apple on a monitor, it was produced by the hardware following rules, however, there is no picture of the apple to be found in any of the software. Actually, there is no image of an apple anywhere to be found in the computer. There are only sequences of binary code that designate certain pixels on the monitor to contain different levels of red, green, and blue, which are not red, green, or blue themselves. Each color can't be found in the computer either, they are written in binary code as well. So, either computers have minds, or physical mechanisms are able to reproduce an image without containing an image itself. So, which is it?

 

[Dre89]

Dre, you make it so hard to do these kinds of debates. I have to think you already know the answer to these silly questions. I mean, as a philosopher, you must have gone through this before. So I'm forced only to assume that you're asking me only in the hopes that I haven't, which is fundamentally dishonest.

What?

OF COURSE, being able to imagine an apple doesn't necessitate the existence of the mind outside the body. Asking the question "where does the thought exist" is a nonsensical question not deserving of an answer. You might as well ask: "Where does green exist"? (Not things which are green, but green itself) Does this prove the existence of a Platonic world of Forms? No. It proves that English is stupid and capable of forming a sentence which sounds like a question but really isn't.

Firstly, I'm not a Platonic dualist. Secondly, you conveniently avoid answering the questions because they pose a problem for your theory.

If you were to say to me "if God is good why does evil exist?" and I gave you the answer you just gave me, you would deem that insufficient.

Besides, the green question is of no relevance. I never said green as a concept exists. However, I can explain the green that exists in mental imagery as being non-physical.


I don't see how it's unreasonable to ask where an untangible, yet visual entity exists if everything in the world is physical. It'd only be pointless if I was asking where specifically in the non-physical world it exists. However, asking where in the physical it exists is a meaningful question because the properties of the entity make it questionable whether it really could exist anywhere physically.

Now it's important you don't misinterpret what my argument is here. I'm not saying that determinism is wrong because it doesn't have solutions to these questions, which non-physicalism does. I'm saying that the fact it doesn't, and non-physicalism does, means that the BoP is now on the determinist to prove why determinism is more logical, seeing as another theory has sensible solutions to these questions.

Again, equate it to the problem of evil scenario in God debates. If the theist cannot explain why evil exists if God is good, then he/she needs to provide other, positive reasons as to why it is still more reasonable to be believe God is good/exists, as opposed to the opposite. The same goes with you and determinism.

As for the robots, of course the strict answer is "I don't and can never know, not even in principle." But I can say for sure (as a computer scientist myself) that robots as they exist today are quite primitive. But to be fair, AI is a tough field and doesn't get a lot of respect. I see no reason why humans have to be inherently different than a sufficiently advanced robot.

So are you saying then that in time, robots will be able to have conscious minds? Do you think that a robot will be able to have the thought of an apple in it's mind, distinct from the data and programming which allows to identify what an apple is? If you do, you're essentially acknowledging a distinction between the robot's data and its mind, which would be non-physical, seeing as it is distinct form the physical data.



Rvkevin- That analogy doesn't work. Firstly, with the computer, the image of the apple physically exists on the screen. Now until that image is physically produced on the screen, the image of the apple does not exist at all. All that exists is the data for the image (which we can equate to the chemicals in the brain).

It's not as if a computer has a conscious mind, separate from its data and programming, that allows it have an image of the apple in its mind before it projects it on the screen.

With a human however, the image of the apple exists in the mind (in that the person imagines it) without it being physically present anywhere. There is a distinction between the physical chemicals in the brain and the image in the person's head, before it is physically present anywhere.

 

[AltF4]

Wow... you're actually serious about that argument, aren't you.

An image is a collection of photons, light, that is traveling through space. Nothing more, nothing less. When this light hits a human eye, it is collected and interpreted by the brain in the form of electro-chemical processes to produce the thought of the image. Thoughts are nothing more than a highly complex series of electro-chemical processes and states. (Which are, of course, not terribly yet well understood.)

"The mind" is identical to "data and programming" (as you put it) is what I'm telling you. Or, rather, that there is no other coherent theory.

 

[Dre89]

Wow... you're actually serious about that argument, aren't you.

An image is a collection of photons, light, that is traveling through space. Nothing more, nothing less. When this light hits a human eye, it is collected and interpreted by the brain in the form of electro-chemical processes to produce the thought of the image. Thoughts are nothing more than a highly complex series of electro-chemical processes and states. (Which are, of course, not terribly yet well understood.)

"The mind" is identical to "data and programming" (as you put it) is what I'm telling you. Or, rather, that there is no other coherent theory.

Are you talking about an external image (as in something I perceive with my eyes) or an internal thought (thinking of an apple when not externally perceiving an apple with me eyes).

Secondly, what was that post attempting to prove? I never denied chemicals produce our thoughts. I argued that there is a distinction between a thought and the chemicals that produced them. The chemicals exist physically in the brain. The image doesn't physically exist anywhere, yet it is visually perceivable.

If I imagine an apple, the image of the apple is the result of the chemicals, it isn't actually the chemicals themselves. Unless you're actually arguing that what I perceive in my brain when I envision an apple are the physical chemicals responsible for that vision, that post served no purpose.

 

[AltF4]

That is precisely what I'm telling you, Dre. I don't know how to put it any more plainly and clearly. The mind is a product of the brain. A thought is a process within the brain, not a transubstantial product of a process therein.

Any attempts to appeal to supernatural forces (which again, I remind the reads, is a synonym for "nonsensical") which produce a non-physical mind violate everything we know about how the universe works. It would violate conservation of momentum, conservation of energy, conservation of mass, locality, and causality. In other words, it is wrong. You just cannot reconcile the concept of Free Will with modern science.

 

[ballin4life]

Ballin:

First, you have to realize that causality is something which pertains only to fundamental constituents of the universe. You can't apply it to macro objects or events. ("That person punched me without cause!") It describes the universe as an enormous causal chain.

All actions are caused by actions at a time prior to it, and only in its immediate surrounding. (Principle of Locality) Though keep in mind that the universe is not a Euclidean space. (Relativity) So our concepts of near and far can get skewed.

Perhaps that helps? That was off the top of my head, not from a text book. So it surely can be made more precise.

What does "cause" mean? How do you know one thing caused another? How do you know causality pertains only to fundamental constituents of the universe? What are fundamental constituents of the universe?

Also, it seems like you are rejecting action at a distance. This was a big deal way back in the day, but anyway there is no reason to assume that action at a distance is impossible. Gravity was the obvious first example of action at a distance, and IIRC there are some quantum mechanics things that appear to be action at a distance. There have been attempts to reconcile those things, but it seems to me more like they are attempts to redefine what "action" and "at a distance" mean.

To say that there is an exception to a law is to say that the law doesn't really exist.

This simply isn't the case at all. As long as you can clearly define which cases are exceptions, then it is still a perfectly valid law.

This is exactly what I was warning about above. Causality does not directly apply to macro objects like "humans". You can't say that a human was the cause of anything (in this strict scientific meaning of causality). It's all at the subatomic level.

I don't see the issue. When I say "human" I am of course referring to the human mind.

But anyway, how do you know exactly which objects it's ok to apply causality to? Atoms? But atoms are made of protons, neutrons, and electrons, so should we apply causality to those? Oh, but protons and neutrons are made of quarks. Maybe quarks are made of something else. How do you know which thing it's ok to apply causality to?

Your brain controls your body. Your brain is a collection of fundamental particles, each of which obey causality. Either they all keep obeying causality (like a robot or bunch of rolling rocks would) or else you violate causality.

Again, since I'm still not sure what causality is I can't tell you if it contradicts free will. But I'll ask this question: why did I think of Paris, togas, and chopsticks just now? What caused these thoughts?

That is precisely what I'm telling you, Dre. I don't know how to put it any more plainly and clearly. The mind is a product of the brain. A thought is a process within the brain, not a transubstantial product of a process therein.

A thought is a process within the mind. The mind may be a product of the brain, in the sense that all minds are associated with brains, but it's easy to show that they aren't the same thing. You can imagine a mind existing without any brain. This proves that they aren't the same concept.

Any attempts to appeal to supernatural forces (which again, I remind the reads, is a synonym for "nonsensical") which produce a non-physical mind violate everything we know about how the universe works. It would violate conservation of momentum, conservation of energy, conservation of mass, locality, and causality. In other words, it is wrong. You just cannot reconcile the concept of Free Will with modern science.

This isn't true though. Because how do we know what we know about modern science and the way the universe works? By studying non-human objects. In fact, our knowledge of the mind is more fundamental than our knowledge of other objects (see Descartes' Meditations). I don't see how that is appealing to anything supernatural.

 

[AltF4]

See, Ballin, these are good questions. Even when I see things differently than you, I feel like it's a productive conversation. Let's go through some things:

First is that we have to be wary of an infinite regress of definitions. No matter what I answer, you can always come back and say "well what does THAT mean?". If you're expecting a complete universal Theory of Everything, I'm going to leave you disappointed.

So I think it's pretty clear what is meant by "caused". It's a specific interaction which is governed by the laws of nature. Our best view into them thus far is quantum mechanics. Essentially says things like "If particle X travels at particle Y with such and such properties, Z happens". Conditions are set and determined, then an effect is produced. Cause and effect.

What are the fundamental constituents of the universe? Another good question. The obvious answer is that we don't know with a whole lot of certainty. At a certain level, all the "particles" wind up not being particles at all, but rather probability distribution fields. IE: Basic mathematical constructs. As if the world is only made of math, and that all macroscopic phenomenon are emergent behaviors from this. Fascinating stuff. But not ultimately important for us. Whatever it is that's actually the fundamental constituent of the universe, that's what causality applies to directly.

How do you know causality pertains only to fundamental constituents of the universe? See? Another great question! This one is easy if you think about it for a moment. Whatever this particle (for the sake of being being concise) is, that's all there exists in the universe. All of existence is a huge soup of this stuff. There is nothing else.

These particles sometimes arrange themselves into unique patterns and shapes, which we then give names like "molecules". But the molecule is an illusion. Really all that exists is that fundamental particle. So it's not that "causality only applies to the fundamental constituent". It's that "ALL laws only apply to that particle". (Since that particle is the only thing which really exists)

"Also, it seems like you are rejecting action at a distance". Yes I am. This is called the Principle of Locality. I will note that not every interpretation of Quantum Mechanics relies on Locality. There are some consistent theories which include non-locality. Put more rigorously: "Experiments have shown that quantum mechanically entangled particles must violate either the principle of locality or the form of philosophical realism known as counterfactual definiteness"

The Copenhagen Interpretation is by far the most adhered to, and involves maintaining Locality. But this isn't very important for us.

But I'll ask this question: why did I think of Paris, togas, and chopsticks just now? What caused these thoughts?

The brain is wildly complex, so of course you don't expect me to give you a complete biochemical account of precisely how those specific thoughts came about in your head. But that's not important. My point is merely that those thoughts happened entirely within your head. And that your head is governed by the same laws of nature that rocks are. Which is to say that your head doesn't get special treatment.

A thought is a process within the mind. The mind may be a product of the brain, in the sense that all minds are associated with brains, but it's easy to show that they aren't the same thing. You can imagine a mind existing without any brain. This proves that they aren't the same concept.

Careful with your wording here. The brain and the mind are different CONCEPTS. Yes. That does not prove that there exists a mind separate from the body. One can imagine a bodiless mind, sure.

One can also imagine many things which don't exist. Imagining it doesn't make it real. I'm not saying it's inconceivable for there to be bodiless minds, I'm saying that they're not real. (More specifically, that they contradict all of science)

This isn't true though. Because how do we know what we know about modern science and the way the universe works? By studying non-human objects. In fact, our knowledge of the mind is more fundamental than our knowledge of other objects (see Descartes' Meditations). I don't see how that is appealing to anything supernatural.

I've been very careful with my wording here. I've refrained from calling Free Will fully impossible on purpose. If you're keen on just rejecting all scientific discoveries and theories, then sure, go ahead and have your Free Will. But don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

You may really want 1=2 to be true. And so you reject all of mathematics for it to be true. Sure. But that's not a terribly compelling argument.

A Flat Earth is more likely than Free Will. In order for a Flat Earth to be true, it would require a complete upheaval of astrophysics, combined with a massive conspiracy theory. But at least parts of it are otherwise plausible. Free Will just breaks everything, and I mean everything.


EDIT: I will say that Free Will has one thing going for it: It undoubtedly FEELS like we have it. But I think that anyone here can see that this is hardly an argument at all. Intuition is an evolutionary product forged under the context of ordinary earthly experience. It is not at all to be trusted in matters of science.

 

[Dre89]

Alt- So let me get this straight. You're saying the apple in my brain is actually simply the physical chemicals.

So if I were to put a camera in my skull, you would see a bunch of red chemicals in the shape of an apple would you?

If that isn't the case, then there's a distinction between the physical chemicals and the image, which has no physical location.

So are you admitting that there is a visually perceivable entity that has no physical location? And are you saying that a robot has a mind which can generate the thought of an apple distinct from the physical data?

 

[AltF4]

As usual, Dre, you simply use some subtle word play try and twist definitions into declaring what you want. Of course there is not a bunch of red chemicals in the shape of an apple in your skull. There is no need playing obtuse here in the Debate Hall. We expect higher of you, please.

You are intentionally confusing the difference between the image of an apple with the thought of an apple. They are completely distinct things.

What is an image? It's a group of photons traveling through space.
What is a thought? It's a biochemical and electric process within the brain.

The image (the photons) hit your eyes, are interpreted by the brain into electro-chemical states and processes, which are interpreted as an apple. "An image" never exists within your brain. Only thoughts do.

 

[Dre89]

I used the word image to express the mental image of an apple someone has when they think of an apple.

You haven't addresses the problem. You say everything is physical, yet the object of a thought is visually perceivable, yet has no physical location, meaning it is non physical.

To be honest Alt, most of the time I have no idea what you're talking about when you accuse me of deception. I'm not sure if it's simply you not understanding methodologies other than the one you were taught, or a deceptive way to avoid answering my questions. Either way, your accusations baffle me.

 

[AltF4]

Let's just think this through, shall we? Do you really expect for a proof that a separate world of the non-physical mind to be so easy?

Let's suppose you're right. All you have to do is picture any image in your head, and that's definitive proof of a supernatural universe where our minds rest separate from our bodies. Sure. I mean, the proof is right there in front of us in a few sentences as you put it. Definitive.

Well, then clearly anyone who disagrees must just be stupid. I mean, the proof is right there. It's not open to debate. You're not trying to say that there MIGHT be a supernatural world of minds, you're claiming to have definitive PROOF. So I guess the entire scientific community is just being stupid. And all those engineers, too. In fact, most people. Or deliberately ignorant.

Unless this is brand new, from you Dre. In which case you should run out and grab your Nobel prize. Since this will be the most important work of intellect this millennium.

Or. (This may come as a shock) You could be wrong. Maybe it's not quite so simple to produce a definitive prove of the existence of a supernatural plane of existence. Just maybe.


The "object of a thought" is the apple itself. There is no mysterious supernatural apple that exists in some non-physical form.

 

[Dre89]

Woah settle down big fella.

Firstly, I don't where you drew the inference that I'd be implying scientists and engineers are stupid. The free-will debate has nothing to do with those disciplines.

I find it ironic that you accuse me of deception, when again all you've done is try to portray me in a bad light without addressing my arguments. I don't know why you're so bitter towards me when I've never done anything to you or said anything negative about you.


Oh and as for you accusing me of claiming a definite proof of non-physicalism:

Now it's important you don't misinterpret what my argument is here. I'm not saying that determinism is wrong because it doesn't have solutions to these questions, which non-physicalism does. I'm saying that the fact it doesn't, and non-physicalism does, means that the BoP is now on the determinist to prove why determinism is more logical, seeing as another theory has sensible solutions to these questions.

Again, equate it to the problem of evil scenario in God debates. If the theist cannot explain why evil exists if God is good, then he/she needs to provide other, positive reasons as to why it is still more reasonable to be believe God is good/exists, as opposed to the opposite. The same goes with you and determinism.
.

Got ya. Here is empirical proof that you deliberately twist my arguments to put me in a bad light. After all the accusations you throw at me for being deceptive, if anyone is guilty of that it's you.

Also, the last line of your post is the only one relevant to the debate. The thing is, the thought of an apple is different to the apple which provoked that thought. The mental image of the apple is still something that is visually perceivable. Now if everything is physical, wouldn't something that is at least two dimensional, and is visually perceivable have a location in the physical world?

 

[blazedaces]

Before I begin explaining a little bit about memory, let me point out that this doesn't discredit either alt or dre in this argument.

But I wanted to point out this fact anyway, that memories are not "stored" in our minds/brains (these two things mean the same to me), they are in fact recreated every time we access them. They are recreated based on "cues" in your brain. Not only are the recreated every time, but often this process will modify them causing the memory to be permanently modified. This explains very well why people have their own version of events and can believe it so whole-heartedly. This also explains why often we try to remember something but we can't... then later when we are doing something else the memory just comes to us, because we accessed the necessary cues.

Here's two sources that try to go into more detail: http://www.brain-scape.com/blog/2011/07/the-instability-of-memory/ and http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/How-Our-Brains-Make-Memories.html?c=y&page=1

Our brains do not work identically to computers. And this is in fact a great thing. A computer's memory is limited, it can run out. We literally have just about no limit to how much we can remember, so long as there is a common association with most of our memories. Most of what I'm discussing comes from a couple of published articles (published in peer-reviewed journals and given to me by a friend who was doing cognitive research) that I can't recall or find right now. Basically, imagine the cues in our brain as the alphabet in our language. Only 26 letters, but how many words can we create with them? Is there even a limit? Not really.

This being said though, I want to clarify something in response to dre. Dre, what exactly do you think a picture is? When you stare at your monitor and see an apple... do you believe you are looking at a 3-dimensional apple? Because even a monitor/television is just made of hundreds of tiny little specs of light, each a variant of yellow/red/green, and they are just put in the proper place to show you the illusion of a red apple. And is this apple stored somewhere in the computer? Probably... but not as an apple, as a bunch of 0's and 1's.

The same is true of the brain. The idea of the apple is stored somewhere physical, at least while you are thinking about it... but not in the form of a red object imprinted somewhere in the brain, but as a bunch of chemical reactions or electrical pulses.

There is more than one way to store an object. In a computer for example, you can store memory in "zip" files (or any other compressed format)... But the files that tell the computer to draw the apple, even if they were in zip format, still contain the information to draw that apple. The information can change forms, but it is still physical and still exists regardless.

This is the point I believe Alt is trying to convey to you. I also believe Alt feels you are pretending perhaps to misunderstand in order to frustrate him... perhaps I am mistaken. If I am not though, Alt, you must realize that this is not the case. Dre is not being dishonest or spiteful. He is simply debating his point of view.

At the same time, Dre, no one is out to get you. I have not seen Alt twist any of your words. Perhaps I am wrong, but even if I am not, I'm certain no one is twisting your words intentionally. It is simply how the argument sounds to them. You must remember, Dre, that what you think, what you write down, and what other people hear/read are in fact distinct. Now, they may be related, you may try very hard to write down exactly what you think and convey it in the clearest possible manner, but nothing is perfect and not everyone is going to understand everything you say. Usually though, given enough back and forth discussion, these misunderstandings are cleared up.

-blazed

 

[AltF4]

So I guess that means that Dre is not asserting to have proof of the existence of non-physical minds. Good. Let's ignore that line of reasoning then. Which was my intention.

Unless you are. In which case, call the Nobel committee.

EDIT: Blazedaces: Yea, neurology is super interesting. I had a graduate course or two on AI some time back, and there's a lot of overlap with psychology. One of the courses was actually open to psychology grads in fact. Psychologists tend to get a bad reputation since they make progress so slowly, but it's a hard field. AI is the same way, so they like to get together and complain how hard their jobs are. XD Plus there's a lot of overlap.

A debate about whether it's even an apt comparison between a human brain and a computer is a good debate topic.

 

[ballin4life]

So I think it's pretty clear what is meant by "caused". It's a specific interaction which is governed by the laws of nature. Our best view into them thus far is quantum mechanics. Essentially says things like "If particle X travels at particle Y with such and such properties, Z happens". Conditions are set and determined, then an effect is produced. Cause and effect.

I disagree that it's clear what is meant by "caused". That's why I keep asking.

I think one possible definition (which relies on counterfactuals) might be "A causes B if B would not have happened without A". Now, would I have stuck out my tongue just now if my mind had not formed the thought of doing so? I think the evidence points to a causal relationship there.

How do you know causality pertains only to fundamental constituents of the universe? See? Another great question! This one is easy if you think about it for a moment. Whatever this particle (for the sake of being being concise) is, that's all there exists in the universe. All of existence is a huge soup of this stuff. There is nothing else.

These particles sometimes arrange themselves into unique patterns and shapes, which we then give names like "molecules". But the molecule is an illusion. Really all that exists is that fundamental particle. So it's not that "causality only applies to the fundamental constituent". It's that "ALL laws only apply to that particle". (Since that particle is the only thing which really exists)

I'm a bit skeptical about the automatic assumption that everything in the universe is made of one type of particle, but ok sure. Now what is your evidence for causality?

"Also, it seems like you are rejecting action at a distance". Yes I am. This is called the Principle of Locality. I will note that not every interpretation of Quantum Mechanics relies on Locality. There are some consistent theories which include non-locality. Put more rigorously: "Experiments have shown that quantum mechanically entangled particles must violate either the principle of locality or the form of philosophical realism known as counterfactual definiteness"

Hmm, I'm not sure why you would hold on to locality over counterfactual definiteness.

The brain is wildly complex, so of course you don't expect me to give you a complete biochemical account of precisely how those specific thoughts came about in your head. But that's not important. My point is merely that those thoughts happened entirely within your head. And that your head is governed by the same laws of nature that rocks are. Which is to say that your head doesn't get special treatment.

But I think there is less evidence for the case of my head than there is for rocks. That's because we can't give that biochemical account of what happened. Now, once again your position is that IF you knew enough then you could predict exactly which thoughts I will have. I just don't see a reason to make this assumption and I find it slightly implausible. When you look at the difficulty that we have predicting human actions in general, I think free will is a better explanation.

Careful with your wording here. The brain and the mind are different CONCEPTS. Yes. That does not prove that there exists a mind separate from the body. One can imagine a bodiless mind, sure.

One can also imagine many things which don't exist. Imagining it doesn't make it real. I'm not saying it's inconceivable for there to be bodiless minds, I'm saying that they're not real. (More specifically, that they contradict all of science)

My only purpose there was to show that they are different concepts. Our knowledge of the mind is prior to our knowledge of the body.

I've been very careful with my wording here. I've refrained from calling Free Will fully impossible on purpose. If you're keen on just rejecting all scientific discoveries and theories, then sure, go ahead and have your Free Will. But don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

I don't think free will is incompatible with science at all.

You may really want 1=2 to be true. And so you reject all of mathematics for it to be true. Sure. But that's not a terribly compelling argument.

That's a completely different type of statement. 1=2 is not true by the definitions of the symbols involved.

A Flat Earth is more likely than Free Will. In order for a Flat Earth to be true, it would require a complete upheaval of astrophysics, combined with a massive conspiracy theory. But at least parts of it are otherwise plausible. Free Will just breaks everything, and I mean everything.

How? Our empirical observations still support our scientific theories, so I don't see the issue.

EDIT: I will say that Free Will has one thing going for it: It undoubtedly FEELS like we have it. But I think that anyone here can see that this is hardly an argument at all. Intuition is an evolutionary product forged under the context of ordinary earthly experience. It is not at all to be trusted in matters of science.

Heh. At some level so-called intuition is all we have, since as we discussed earlier knowledge of the mind is prior to other knowledge. This alleged illusion of free will is important. How do we know that one thing causes another? At some level we are making the correlation = causation fallacy, where we see event A, then event B, and we assume that B would not have happened without A. Usually to make sure that A truly caused B we try to control for all possible variables, but this isn't completely possible. After all, time has gone by, and you can't exactly go back to repeat the experiment at the same exact moment in time. So sure, it's possible to say that free will is just a correlation = causation fallacy. But I think there's as much evidence that my thoughts cause the actions of my body as there is that one billiard ball hitting another causes the second ball to move. After repeated experimentation and attempts to control for other variables we note that event A precedes event B and assume that A causes B.

Anyway, I hope that at least explains why I keep asking about the definition of causality.

 

[AltF4]

I'm going to switch up the order of my responses, hope it isn't too confusing.

- Yes, you're right about locality. It isn't necessary. But it also isn't really related to what we're talking about. I shouldn't have brought it up. It just caused a tangent.

- I shouldn't have made it sound like there is only one fundamental particle. There could be more than one kind, surely. But again, doesn't really change anything.

- Causality is assumed. I think I made that fairly clear. It's a basic assumption you just have to make in order to move forward with anything. Otherwise, there is no rhyme or reason to anything. Strictly speaking, you don't "prove" it.

But every piece of evidence ever wrought for science is also evidence in support of causality. It demonstrates that the universe does not work according to whim or superstition. It works according to laws which can be expressed in the form of the language of mathematics. All of human discovery can be summarized as the gradual realization of this fact.

- There are many systems that science has yet to fully understand. Consider the weather. We are woefully unable to predict the weather with any degree of accuracy most of the time. It remains such an incredibly complex system that it many times SEEMS as if it had a consciousness behind it. As if there were a person pulling the strings, as it were. People used to seriously think this was true, too.

Of course we now know that this is nonsense. It's all just differences in air pressure, humidity, air currents, rotation of the earth, etc... Given more complete data and a better account of how the weather interacts, we could accurately predict the weather.

Why should we expect the human brain to be any different? Human actions can actually be predicted with high accuracy given a large enough sample size, but in any particular instance it remains too complex. There's so many processes happening and on such a small scale that it becomes difficult in practice to gain anything from it.

But what is really different about the human brain from any other complex system? We happen to be made of the same basic elements. Is there some special chemical that can defy the laws of physics? Where in the brain is the gland that communicates with the non-physical mind?

EDIT: I forgot to address the most important point. XD

Like I've said previously, causality is a basic assumption of science itself. Without it, all of science is just wrong. The broad concept of causality is of course well known. Essentially that every effect has a cause previous in time to it. And that every effect produces a cause later in time. Thus forming an unbroken causal chain. (yes this leads naturally into questions about the Big Bang! A great conversation for another thread)

The exact nature of these causes and effects are described not in words, but in the language of mathematics. Consider the law of universal gravitation:
F = G * ( m1 * m2 ) / r^2

You give it an initial state, (Two masses and the distance between them) and it tells you the cause (an attractive force). You can then use other laws to determine how that effect (the force) acts as a cause to other effects, and so on.

This is how physics works. Cause and effect. Nowhere will you find a mathematical equation that says:
d = H / sqrt( Z* )
*= Unless Z doesn't feel like it.