Free will and determinism

[o_mlly]

Do you not think man is just a really smart chimp? And if so, does that belief underpin your dismissal of the existence of free will in man? If not, why not?

Yes. But to the extent that free will might be considered possible for us. But not for chimps. ...

Categorically, we are in agreement.

... Instinct can take you so far. But you start to need second and third level thought processes at some point.

Now, you will likely argue that those "second and third level thought processes" evolved in man.

If I am right then your position on free will derives from your position on man as evolved from bacteria, and that position derives from your atheism. Just like Sapolsky, you would not believe otherwise. Not because you don't have the free will to do so but doing so would render an incoherent philosophy of man. (Just wanted to finish this exchange.)

 

[Halbhh]

That's pretty much what happens. We take all the available inputs and select the one that fits with what we want to do. No-one is arguing against that. What is being said is that the inputs will determine that decision. Different parts of the brain, your reptilian part, the amygdala, your frontal cortex etc, they are in effect 'brainstorming' the problem.

I've no argument with that.

There are two definitions of chaotic. The usual sense of an incredibly complex system that is deemed unpredictable. But which is theoretically possible in some way - think of Laplace's Demon for example. And a more mathematical definition when you have a system that is literally impossible to predict.

So it could be possible for Laplace's Demon to predict the outcome of an action that your great great x 1,000 grandfather did as it relates to what you are doing right now. But it's effectively impossible. But even if it was theoretically impossible, it still doesn't mean that what you are doing wasn't determined by what your ancestor did. It's logically impossible for that not to be the case.

Ah, here you're helpfully laying out a basic concept of (one way of saying) what is determinism. That is very old to me, my own starting point actually about 40 years ago. Back then, and for quite a while I favored/expected there must likely be a full physics determinism, so I was at that time in favor of Einstein's view -- i.e., that seeming quantum randomness only meant we haven't yet found out the fully causal deterministic laws yet, so that classic quantum mechanics experiments (in Einstein's estimation) were not showing randomness in individual particle behavior necessarily, but we just need to discover what are the hidden variables, how things really work, deterministically.

....that was a long time ago for me, from my mid teens until I began to learn about quantum mechanics more in my 20s.

But, it seems likely that Einstein was wrong, today, due to Bell Test experiments.

If you can follow it even in just gist (as much as you can is good though), a wiki article or 2 might help you gain some a basic physics picture of where we are at on that old question. So, I want you to progress past the basics like understanding determinism as a basic idea, such as by Laplace's Demon, the 19th century idea determinism view that was popular. (so, you should now see I'd already know such a basic concept and the same determinism was what I was already talking about above, and won't be needing to have it explained....). Let's get closer to now in physics (we need to get into the 20th century at least).

Actually, best might be if you begin to understand why full determinism isn't a sure thing, so before the more advanced summary wiki articles, here's another wiki that will help catch you up on competing theories that are trying to go past the Copenhagen Interpretation, and seek an ultimate answer to go past the debate between Einstein and Bohr -- where in view of seeming randomness in the behavior of an individual particle, the debate began long ago (which got going starting in the 1930s and continued until John Bell figured out a key way to test who might be right), and physics has progressed a lot in the many decades since.. Interpretations of quantum mechanics - Wikipedia

 

[Bradskii]

Your examination of these citations must be dismissed as you have taken the wrong perspective in your criticisms.

The underlying problem in this thread is the framing of the question regarding free will. Against the self-evident fact that free will exists, you take the position that unless science can prove that free will exists, it does not. Then go on to claim (Sapolsky) that science has shown a naturalistic solution that completely undermines the notion of free will.

Him and many others. You should not be taking the position that 'This guy wrote a book and now we're supposed to believe that there's no free will'. That's a pretty narrow view of the discussion. There's a boat load of literature challenging the idea yet you seem determined to ignore it. Because...well, it's 'self evident'. I'm afraid that's the only position you've presented so far so I haven't had much to argue against. Oh, plus the risible 'you're an atheist so you must think there's no free will'.

So let's do it. We'll use one of the links you gave to a paper that we can actually access: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cogs.12372

Please let me know exactly what you think is in that paper that supports the position that free will exists. It discusses what people believe in various situations as regards compatibilism or incompatibilism so you'll be hard pressed to find anything, but you've tossed it out as a case for the prosecution, so let's examine it.

The citations I provided were to show those stipulations to be false which they did. Against your claim, the citations show there is evidence of randomness (indeterminacy) in the brain's decision-making process...

Before we start a deep dive into examining any evidence that it exists in a way that might affect one's decision making abilities, could you explain how random events are applicable to the idea of free will?

Finally, as I don't care for long posts, I'll comment on this claim of certainty. Do you mean to imply that low blood sugar is the only variable that affects mood? If so then you are wrong. Sweet delusion. Glucose drinks fail to counteract ego depletion - PubMed

If you're going to make up what I've written then maybe you should write my posts for me. It'll save us some time. No, I did not 'imply' any such thing. I said what I meant and meant what I said. That low blood sugar affects your moods. No-one said or implied that it's the only variable. My blood sugar is fine but my mood is frustration at the moment having to point out that you are literally making things up. Please stop.

The fact that it's a perfectly understood and non controversial statement shows some desperation that you'd even try to counter it. With a paper that doesn't even address it.

However, since the underlying evidence is less compelling than suggested, replications are crucially required. ... Despite applying powerful research designs, no effect of sugar sensing or ingestion on ego depletion could be detected. These findings add to previous challenges of the glucose model of self-control and highlight the need for independent replications.​

Maybe you don't know what ego depletion is. From wiki: 'Ego depletion is the controversial idea that self-control or willpower draws upon a limited pool of mental resources that can be used up (with the word "ego" used in the psychoanalytic sense rather than the colloquial sense). That paper has nothing to do with hypoglycaemia at all.

 

[Bradskii]

Now, you will likely argue that those "second and third level thought processes" evolved in man.

Well, there's no evidence that they have evolved anywhere else. And we have them. So logic dictates...

If I am right then your position on free will derives from your position on man as evolved from bacteria...

I think you'd like to believe that. Possibly because it would then make it easier for you to dismiss. It's the second (or third) time you've tried to claim it. This will be the second (or third) time I'm going to reject it. And as I said before...

...I believed that we had free will for decades. It wasn't based on my lack of a belief in God or gods. It appeared to be a common sense position. The reasons why I gradually changed my mind have been explained. I've even given a list of some of the people that have influenced me (including Augustine, for heaven's sake). Notwithstanding that there are many Christians - Lutherans and Calvinists for example, that also reject free will. So you don't need a belief in God to think it exists and you don't need a lack of belief to think that it doesn't.

And as I have mentioned, if it exists then it would be because it was evolutionary beneficial. But believing it exists would have the same effect. So Occam's razor comes in handy here and the second option is the simplest.

There won't be a fourth time by the way.

 

[Bradskii]

Ah, here you're helpfully laying out a basic concept of (one way of saying) what is determinism.

I've got to be careful here when talking about quantum mechanics. As my avatar, Richard Feynman once said: 'If you think you understand quantum mechanics then you don't understand quantum mechanics'. He was one of the smartest guys around and even he admitted he found it exceptionally difficult. So getting into technical details is not an option.

What is possible is to read what others have said as regards quantum mechanics and free will and see if they think it's applicable. The main point usually addressed is that quantum indeterminacy seems to counter the claim that the world is determinate.

The problem is that the discussion doesn't revolve around determinacy or indeterminacy. It revolves around compatibilism or incompatibilism. Whether free will is compatible with a determinate world or incompatible with it. For the rather obvious reason that if the world was not determinate then it is obviously random. That somehow cause and effect don't hold. In which case free will would not be possible. Decisions themselves would be random.

There are libertarians who hold that free will can still exist but I've not been able to find an argument that explains how in a manner that doesn't include some type of dualism or backward causation down to the quantum level (see following post for details). But if you want to suggest that the world is not determinate and can find a good argument how free will works in such a world, then I'll be keen to hear it.

 

[Bradskii]

Ah, here you're helpfully laying out a basic concept of (one way of saying) what is determinism.

As regards what I mentioned above re libertarianism (free will in an indeterminate world), here's a few comments from Rob Kane, a leading libertarian. They are from here: https://iweb.langara.ca/rjohns/files/2016/10/KANE_fw_1.pdf

'We often act from a will already formed. But it is “our own free will” by virtue of the fact that we formed it by other self-forming choices or actions in the past (SFAs) for which we could have done otherwise.

If agents must be responsible to some degree for anything that is a sufficient cause or motive for their actions, an impossible infinite regress of past actions would be required unless some actions in the life histories of the agent (namely, SFAs) did not have either sufficient causes or motives.'

The requirement that agents be responsible by virtue of past voluntary actions for anything that is a sufficient ground or reason for their actions in the sense of a sufficient cause. Reflecting on this regress leads to the conclusion that some actions in the life histories of agents, if the agents are to be ultimately responsible, must be undetermined (must lack sufficient causes).'

Let's hold it there for a moment. He is saying that to be held responsible for any given decision, we must have made a choice in the past (which helped form our character which determined future choices) that didn't have a sufficient cause. If you had to read that a couple of times to make sure you had it right then I don't blame you. Some time in the past you made decisions for no good reasons and those choices helped form your character which then dictates your decisions. Hence free will.

Does that make any sense to you? Apart from suggesting that random decisions are somehow associated with free will, how could this possibly work? Well, he makes an attempt at explaining what he thinks could happen:

'...there is a kind of “stirring up of chaos” in the brain that makes it sensitive to micro-indeterminacies at the neuronal level. The uncertainty and inner tension we feel at such soul-searching moments of self-formation would thus be reflected in the indeterminacy of our neural processes themselves, so that what is experienced internally as uncertainty would correspond physically to the opening of a window of opportunity that temporarily screens off complete determination by influences of the past.'

You'll note that part of that statement was quoted earlier in a mention of quantum indeterminacy. I can only ask if it makes any sense to you, because it doesn't to me. And there is no explanation as to how this happens. No evidence for it at all. Which isn't surprising as he's a philosopher not a neurologist. But if you can find anyone expert in neurology or quantum mechanics who could back up his prospective 'stirring up of chaos' causing 'micro indeterminacies of our neural processes' then let's examine it. Otherwise I'm putting this down as woo.

And bear in mind, he's one of the leading lights in libertarianism. Unless you want to discuss this type of...philosophising then I suggest we stick to compatibilism or incompatibilism and accept a determinate world.