free will/determinism: clarifications and additions

[tiecuando]

Conditioning is more plausible than causality. So, can you recondition your mind to do other things?

[tk050305cnx]

Hmm. Of course, the brain can do what a Turing machine can do. The question is: can it do more than that? -It would appear so.- It can understand mathematics for example, as Penrose argued, and it can also perceive beauty. These are things that cannot be computed, or can they? In my view consciousness is the key to indeterminism, not brain functions. Consciousness isn't based on the brain, but the brain is based on consciousness.

[moegreen2]

how do you solve the problem of the existence of conscious decisions? Hi again. One way to look at it, is that the consciousness is only a screen where some of the thoughts of our "unconscious brain" are slipping throu. The consciousness wil then believe: "because I am forming these words, they are created by me, I am not a screen where thoughts from the unconsiousness sometimes stick to." It would be like a calculator believe it is solving math. problems, when it is a person doing the typing.

[moegreen2]

I think the consciousness is there for some problem solving issues that the unconsious brain can not do. Because we only "hear" what the conscious brain thinks, we think we are the conscious brain, and that we have control. Have you ever done something and later found out that you did not want to do it. It was a reaction from your emotions. But now your emotions have changed so you can not rationalize your actions. If you had not changed emotional state you could rationalize and feel in control.

[kurtilein3]

there is not much that you can rationalize when you are a very skeptical person and make heavy use of concepts like the scientific method. when you make a mistake, often you just have to accept that your brain or you or something screwed up and that a mistake has been made, by you, your brain, doesnt matter, for the rest of the planet you made the mistake.

if people can justify anything stupid that they have done, just because they feel like it, that would seem very immature to me.

[kurtilein3]

moegreen: your view of consciousness of being a mirror of subconsciously selected aspects of subconsciousness is correct. only if you are alone in a prison cell.

but i can add wikipedia articles, research papers, communicate with friends or experts. i can use parts of the meme-pool of our species to break some of the barriers that follow from your prison-cell view of consciousness. and what happens when you combine 10 brains, and get them to cooperate?

[moegreen2]

Not justify, but rationalize. Like: I did that because I was angry. Of course they later can see that they have made a mistake. But the part of the brain that can see the mistake can not have been the part that was active when the deed was done? And I agree with you on the justification part.

[moegreen2]

I cant see how my idea is limiting behavior in any way, plz explain. I guess the conscious mind can have other tasks like reprogramming. But I don't think it's making decisions. If it's the subconscious or couscous part deciding, what difference does it make?

[GetMeThere1]

It seems to me, if you want to claim free will, then it would have to be a characteristic that somehow resides OUTSIDE of your deterministic "actuating system" yet be able to INFLUENCE the deterministic system. I don't see how that can occur. (a "soul" that doesn't live in the material?)

Also, you talk about "disproving" free will. I think you're going backwards here (as religious believers do). What needs to be 'disproved" is determinism. Free will is a claim--one that I find no evidence of.

[kurtilein3]

information is more or less independent from any physical medium, and can do amazing things. its about data, ideas, memes. all the different systems, language, education, music, culture, books and libraries,... . somehow something enabled us to truly be independent conscious individuals. and even persons before the law.

for me, free will is a property of an information processing unit with very special properties. i use the term free will because it enables us to make conscious decisions.

[GetMeThere1]

I would LIKE to think that "information" can have such special properties, but....really, I see no evidence. The information cannot exist outside of it's materialistic/deterministic substrate. Sure, "it" can affect the material mechanism, but causally, it can only come FROM the material mechanism in the first place, and it can only be acted upon by the material mechanism.

To disprove determinism you have to show how it can generate non-deterministic results--seemingly logically impossible.

[kurtilein3]

im talking about INFORMATION.

please watch the following videos to get an example on how IMMATERIAL thoughts and/or pieces of programmed data can map themselves onto reality in impressive ways.

watch?v=DeyzUysMLy0

watch?v=v6GnX3ZhuAg

watch?v=IVms_sahfak

do not underestimate the degree of independence between information and physical medium, and consider the way information shapes reality. i mean, weve been on the moon.

[GetMeThere1]

Sorry. I don't mean to be recalcitrant, but I don't think you're really confronting what I'm saying. Nothing in those vids is outside determinism. NO information that I've ever heard of exists outside materiality. It's created within a material system, stored there, and has it's effects there. To be "free" of materialism, information would have to exist OUTSIDE the universe, and somehow be subjected to a "process" that is not deterministic (a process that I can't imagine or describe).

[kurtilein3]

why should information need to be entirely free of a medium for free will to exist?

theres no reason to accept that limitation. if you argue that a piece of software cannot do what it obviously does, because it necessarily has to run on some kind of physical medium, like a human brain or maybe an incredibly powerful supercomputer. im not arguing that its supposed to magically float in mid-air. im just arguing that we really do have the ability to make conscious decisions and have free will.

[GetMeThere1]

The first problem is to define "free will." As far as I'm concerned, it can only be a result that is not caused by material deterministic events (and not random).

To meet that criterion you would need to show me a non-deterministic result in a program (or a brain). I don't think you could--and in any case it might in fact be IMPOSSIBLE to demonstrate that the result was not deterministic.

Ultimately, you must DEMONSTRATE this free will--currently, I can't even IMAGINE how you could.

[GetMeThere1]

Your resistance on here is analogous to religious believers. No matter how hard they try, they can't step back and "assume" there is no god. So, it's almost impossible for them to frame an argument such that they see that THEY have the burden to demonstrate that god exists.

In the same way, you demonstrate NOTHING to show free will exists, other than to imply that you "know" it does--and it's obvious.

It's not obvious to me how non-deterministic results can arise in a deterministic system.

[kurtilein3]

getmethere:

you will not be able to prove that no human is able to make any conscious decisions, because its just not the case. and this is what you are trying to do when you are trying to disprove free will. how do you solve the problem of the existence of conscious decisions?

[GetMeThere1]

A "conscious decision" is the total of all factors working in the brain, plus all external factors. Perfectly deterministic.

You have the delusion that "thinking" about things is not deterministic. But it is--and there would be nothing to show otherwise. Indeed, nothing in science or philosophy even possesses the LANGUAGE needed to explain what happens in "thinking" except deterministically.

You are merely saying that people's minds are a "special" place that somehow surpasses determinism.

[kurtilein3]

we are pushing the comment system to its limits, i would suggest to switch to a more appropriate way of communication, PMs.

ill respond to your last two comments in a personal message.

[GetMeThere1]

Please explain to me what this mysterious process is, in the deterministic brain, that operates outside determinism. Where does the "mechanism" come from that somehow "overcomes" it's deterministic operation? Describe it.

You interested me when you talked about a "program whose output is unpredictable." Perhaps you could discuss that in more detail. If this happens without apparent "random" input, then....that might be interesting. Personally, I don't see how such a program can exist.

[GetMeThere1]

You would have to describe effects that occur NON-randomly, yet NON-deterministically. I can't even imagine how you could EXPRESS that. Things that happen without a "cause" (i.e., not determined), but aren't random, either.

Again, I can't even imagine how you could DESCRIBE such a thing, demonstrate it to me, or "prove" that it happened (since "proofs" invariably are embedded in logic which is itself embedded in causality).

[kurtilein3]

you could use the same logic to argue that life doesnt exist, because its always only limited to the surface of 1 planet and can never move freely through the universe.

whats that substrate that information has power on? its all human minds that understand language, the internet, books and libraries... that substrate is too small to allow for free will, you dont see how it could be possible in this context? your definitions somehow just dont seem to allow it.

[GetMeThere1]

I've mulled over this topic for many years (ever since having a class at Cornell with Will Provine, in fact). For many years I insisted that free will existed--mostly because it "felt like it did." Finally, I've come to a very strong conclusion that free will is fantasy.

It would be VERY INTERESTING to hear of a proof of a phenomenon in which "something" arises from a deterministic system, then exists OUTSIDE that system, and can then act (from outside) upon that system.

[kurtilein3]

"It would be VERY INTERESTING to hear of a proof of a phenomenon in which "something" arises from a deterministic system, then exists OUTSIDE that system, and can then act (from outside) upon that system."

WHY should thast be necessary? the information in my brain has the power to physically go to new york, tokyo, mcdonalds, or to even annihilate itself. now you say that doesnt count because im not free enough to go to venus or betelgeuse?

[GetMeThere1]

I don't find your argument persuasive. Perhaps if i better understood the characteristics of your "program that needs to be run to know the result, phenomenon". If you mean that there is a randomizing function, or it depends on input (which will be random), then....so what?

I'd like to know WHERE this "free will" can reside in a deterministic system. You seem to what to argue that deterministic is not deterministic.

[kurtilein3]

its data, its information. being processed by a physical medium, our brain. im not talking about anything that would be in violation of any of the known laws of nature. basically a computer with software.

for example: in order to be able to truly have your own independent goals and to reach them, you need to have a quite accurate model of the world you are interacting with. and im not talking about something like google maps, im talking about something like what you have between your ears.

[GetMeThere1]

You still have to demonstrate some "mechanism" of how this magical "non-deterministic" state arises. You would need to do it in a step-by-step fashion (which itself would be deterministic).

I certainly don't wish to "fight" about this (I hope you know that my intentions are honorable--we've talked before). But I need at least an example....of something that did not arise from a cause. As far as I can see, you seem to only be telling me that you "feel" like your thoughts arise without a cause.

[moegreen2]

So you are saying; "the ability to reprogram your mind, is free will"? That can be done in a deterministic model to. And you say a randomizer program in your brain gives you free will. If you can't choose the outcome of the program, you don't have free will after my view

[kurtilein3]

yes, i think it can be done in a deterministic model.

something like access to wikipedia, or the daily newspaper, or to meet other people every day is much better than a randomazer... but in theory i would agree.

but according to your definition of free will, it can never exist, because i will never be able to decide to do something that is in violation of the laws of nature. i cant decide to become weightless. you ask for too much when you ask for complete control over the outcome.

[oooodaxteroooo]

kurtilein, I think you have got a serious problem. Stop talking about programs and our mind. What do you need this comparison for?

How do you know that your brain doesn't decide for you instead of you making decision!? How do you know our brain doesn't just collect info, decides deterministically and we then feel as if we "decided ourselves". This makes us feel good and important. But that is not an argument for free will. It is an illusion. Period.

[kurtilein3]

neurons take time to grow. you can make decisions much faster than that. so there needs to be something different from the brain inside the brain. if you would only have a brain in your head and nothing else, you would be braindead. the other stuff inside our brain is information. and some of this information (common sense, reason, logic) allows us to make decisions in a way that seems to be unique to the human species.

[marsh8472]

Okay here's what I think you mean. Even if determinism is true, we will never be able to prove it since we cannot predict our future actions regardless so we won't be able to confirm we do not have freewill. But this would still make determinism and freewill mutually exclusive I think.

[marsh8472]

And then you said that you think the brain operates in a deterministic manner except sometimes when we make choices. At this point, the determistic behavior in the brain is modified by itself and new determistic behavior is created and our previous fate is changed as a result. Then you must be assuming this whole process of the brain changing itself isn't a slave to the physical laws as well and the freewill you perceive as free would an illusion as well.

[marsh8472]

Determinism: Life is like a movie that we watch. The film is either already made and cannot be changed or if causeless movement of particles truely exist then the film is randomized a bit. Even our thinking and experiences are part of the movie that we watch. This means you not responsible for your accomplishments, beliefs, ideas, etc.

But at least no one's responsible for all the wrong in the world either. In any case, whether freewill is an illusion or not it seems real enough for me :)

[marsh8472]

Here's my question to settle our conflict of definitions I think. If the big bang were duplicated precisely somewhere else and we were having this same conversation 14 billion from that big bang, would still we have freewill? Also in the event that we are not having this conversation 14 billion years from that other big bang and the difference is explained by quantum randomness, would still we have freewill?

[kurtilein3]

this is a quite difficult question, i would answer: yes, in both cases. i dont think that this is enough to disprove free will in one of those universes.

[marsh8472]

hmm "not enough to disprove freewill in one of those universes" are you saying it would be enough to disprove freewill in the other universe though? I would see the people in the alternate universe as an atomic duplicate to us. So it would seem funny that one has freewill and the other does not. I think what you're saying is if the future actions of one universe is already known already then freewill doesn't exist otherwise freewill cannot be proven not to exist.

[kurtilein3]

choose one of the universes. you wont be able to disprove free will in this universe. or choose the other one. the same applies.

maybe i should have added the word ``either´´.

if the universes would know about each other, or if one of these universes would know about the other one, they would immediately merge into one universe, this follows from the definition of ``universe´´.

and if the universes cannot know about each other, you can simplify the problem and just look at one of them.

[marsh8472]

Just making sure here. If I say everything that has happened and will happen is predetermined. If the past, present, and future is already written and cannot be changed hypothetically. In that situation, do we still have freewill?

[marsh8472]

Running the state of the brain may be the only way to predict our actions but it is still a way to prove our actions are predictable and deteremined none the less. These video just gives me a headache from trying to figure out how we could have freewill in a universe that is determined already. My definition of freewill involves having something in our mind that is nonphysical and not completely subject to the laws of the universe or cause and effect (like the soul) that makes our decisions.

[kurtilein3]

dont forget: we experience the universe.

so in reality, to predict our actions, your simulation would need to encompass at least the universe as a whole.

free will does not require anything supernatural, or any violation of the laws of nature. and dont forget that data is not physical. ideas are not completely subject to the laws of the universe. but this is nothing supernatural, we already know it, and free will is an emergent property of minds, minds are software, information.

[marsh8472]

but you did say that if the inputs were the same on each brain then the outputs would be the same until they recieved different inputs. This implies that our decisions are based ultimatley on the inputs fed into our brains our entire life. My pentium 4 has this same behavior but I know that it does not have freewill either. But if my mind works the same way as a computer with the Input A goes in and Output B always comes out, where's the freedom there?

[marsh8472]

I would say data is physical. Whether it be microscopic holes in a cd, electrons flowing in wires, or the state of our neurons in our brain at any given time that represents the idea we are thinking about and has a physical respresentation in that sense. Our mental states at any given time doesn't seem physical since I can't show it to you but my mental state should have a physical representation in my brain as well.

[marsh8472]

You said that our day to day decisions that we don't think hard about are not freewill but just an illusion of freewill. If duplicated on a computer these brains should do the same thing. In the situations where we stop and think hard about a decision and at that moment copy our brain, both brains should reach the same decision there too. Where is the difference in freewill here? Their perspective realities would need to be duplicated as well of course.

[kurtilein3]

``This implies that our decisions are based ultimatley on the inputs fed into our brains our entire life. My pentium 4 has this same behavior but I know that it does not have freewill either.´´ if your computer could and would use the whole internet to see if your orders make sense, and would then stop you from sending one of your emails because it recognizes it as hatespeech, or because you criticize a piece of hardware that your computer likes, then it would show the first signs of free will.

[kurtilein3]

... continued

within one of those universes, you will not be able to disprove free will, unless you establish some kind of one-way or two-way communication between the universes.

[marsh8472]

I agree it's impossible to prove or disprove anything with absolute certainty but I'm trying to see how freewill can be proven to exist if everything is determined already.

[marsh8472]

As you said, if you ran 2 brains under the same state with the same input they will have the same result predictably. We may not be able to predict the result beforehand because we don't have infinite memory or infinite computing power but as you can see once you know the result it cannot be changed no matter how many times you repeat the decision. Where does freewill come into play if our decisions are determined by the cause and effect of things that we have no control over?

[marsh8472]

I don't know. I've watched your videos several times now. I'm familiar with the halting problem in computing but I don't see how it makes the link between determinism and freewill yet. Can you explain how this logic is different than arguing that a hurricane has freewill based on how reacts to input patterns and choas theory? I want to be able to make my own decisions which are not being completely determined (knowably or unknowably) by what happens at the atomic levels behind the scenes.

[marsh8472]

Here's my new thought. Program outcomes cannot be determined mathematically beforehand unless you actually run the program and "crank the gears" to see what happens. Isn't that a form of mathematically computing or proving the result though? Even if it were possible to compute the result of the program without running it, the process of computing the result would still involve this same process of "cranking the gears" to prove the outcome while doing the proof by hand.

[kurtilein3]

a hurricane does not qualify as an example, because a hurricane does not have a mind.

im just trying to prove that you cannot DISprove free will arguing from determinism. you cannot prove that free will is impossible as soon as you are dealing with a mind.

im not positively proving the existence of free will. im not really making a connection, im showing a canyon that needs to be crossed to disprove free will ;)

[marsh8472]

I can see how the inability to predict the output of programs can be used as a way to show that the future cannot be predicted and therefore determinism cannot be proven that way. Then if determnism cannot be proven then freewill cannot be disproven. But you're saying if determinism is true it does not imply that we don't have freewill. Compatibilist's believe that it's possible for both to exist. We're probably just disagreeing on what the definition of freewill is.

[tmafkap]

Hast du schon mal den WP-Artikel gelesen über die "Technologische Singularität"?

Die Menschen ohne freien Willen, auf die Du Dich am Schluss beziehst, erinnern mich ein wenig an das Konzept vom "philosophischen Zombie" (in der deutschen WP wird dieses Konzept leider nur kurz im Hauptartikel "Zombie" abgehandelt, der spezielle Artikel wurde gelöscht, aber vielleicht gibt's dazu etwas auf der englischen WP).

Beste Grüße, TMAFKAP

[kurtilein3]

tmafkap: yesterday i uploaded a 2-part video about coercive persuasion / brainwashing, that might be interesting for you. just search for coercive persuasion on my channel ;)

[preput]

haha, i love english with german accent

[tmafkap]

Vat is zo fanny about se djerman accent?

[preput]

aaaahahaha

[OrionsChild]

If you feel the need to look over your own actions and consciously choose a path other than what you'd normally choose, wouldn't that still be caused by different inputs from your past? Whether you were doing it as an experiment to prove/disprove free will, or a friend told you that you weren't acting properly and that you needed to reevaluate the path you were on, you wouldn't have done so if it were not for another input.

[OrionsChild]

Also, consider a drug addict who is attending therapy as part of "kicking the habit." The therapist asks for her to reevaluate how different and happy her life could be without drugs, and the girl has a revelation and never takes the stuff again. Is she making the conscious, free decision to stop taking drugs, or is her brain simply analyzing the previous inputs of her life and coming up with the rational solution?

[kurtilein3]

orionschild: another question would be: are her actions based on reality, logic and reason? or is she just following other people?

[SkirtsUpPantsDown]

So if we all agree that freewill is a specific kind of decision making which people are able to undertake; what has this accomplished? The term is not technical enough to be useful. I feel that you are alluding to some nebulous collection of mental components. I've found these things much more manageable when broken down to things like Jung's Observing Ego.

[SkirtsUpPantsDown]

What use is the concept of freewill? I can only see it as justification for assigning merit. While it is useful at some times, at others it is a hindrance and at all times it is an illusion. Unless you want to limit the definition of the word to something like: The some of all processes involved in arriving at a decision. As such, I don't see it as a useful concept.

[kurtilein3]

``The sum of all processes involved in arriving at a decision´´

in principle, i would say this is correct. but sometimes the whole is more than just the parts added together, for example when someone has an idea that noone before had, like einsteins theories or chomkys theories. especially when several people cooperate.

and, thinking is work if you want to come up with quality-decisions.

[popebenadict16]

10101000101101101000011

[nontheistdavid]

Plus I dont understand how quauntum mechanics can solve anything. It is based on probabilities and that does not equal unbridled freedom. You can still make probable predictions however small they may be.

[kurtilein3]

i didnt use quantum mechanics, i made it quite clear that i assume that our brain behaves completely deterministic, and/or the little bit of randomness we might be getting is insignificant ;)

[themilitantatheist]

This statement is very telling. You assert the brain is entirely deterministic then allow it to have a little bit of randomness...

Either a) the randomness is observed in the output due to sensitivity of initial conditions and added information - which means it can be modelled. or b) the randomness is inherent to the brain, which obviously contradicts your determinism assertion.

[kurtilein3]

i dont think that our brain needs any internal randomness, i said if there is some randomness in our brain, its insignificant.

yes, it can be modelled, but what if the model still displays free will? i dont differentiate between real free will, and some other kind of fake free will that is in practise indistinguishable from real free will.

[trick0171]

I think our debate here is not on determinism/free will...but rather on compatibilism or incompatibilism. I believe a deterministic universe is completely at odds with the notion that people have a free will (they are incompatible).

[nontheistdavid]

Personally I think it is premature to talk about freewill in computer terms like computation,hardware,software and programs. It just seems like the most up to date analogy to use. In the past they talked about freewill with cogs and wheels and pumps and before then with the the natural elements like wind and fire. In the future after some new discovery is made then that will be the new analogy used. Just my two cents.

[kurtilein3]

i dont see why more should be necessary.

with cogs and wheels and pumps you cannot program any powerful chess-engine.

but with our brain you cannot do anything that you couldnt do with a computer. this really is the final analogy. i see no reason why it should go any further.

[nontheistdavid]

That is based on a huge assumption that no more breakthroughs are going to happen and "paradigms" as they say will not conceptually shift. Science is roughtly 400 years old so I see no reason to think more shifts will not happen. In the future I am sure people with think talking about brains as computers will seem archaic. Its just a difference of opinion kurtilein

[kurtilein3]

all the technology that we have right now is 100% enough to emulate/simulate everything that is going on in our brain, its just that we didnt figure out how the software works yet. perhaps the materials that we use to build computers might change, but it will still be computers ^^

[chascoll]

wow, I looked up universal computers (turning machines) on wikipedia and I have to admit this shit is over my head. I understand a great deal of topics conserving science and philosophy (Real and Abstract). But what? this is Greek to me. Loved the Ted talks video you liked on your last video. Could you possibly do a video on Universal computers?

[kurtilein3]

i studied computational linguistics for 2 years or something, there we learned the basics.

the professors had the oppinion that the brain-functions that are responsible for our language dont even need to be turing-complete, those brain-functions are probarbly even much more simple.

[themilitantatheist]

They did?

I would have thought the comprehension of 'human language' required at least a context sensitive grammar - which requires a TM to manipulate.

This discussion has been good since it has made me go back and read Sipser's book... Bah, I forgot so much.

[premed411]

Your definition of free will is my definition of NO free will. We are chaotic systems, but that does not mean we have free will.

You can't prove that God doesn't exist (pardon my double negative). But this is not a reason to believe in god. Your argument regarding free will seems to me to be analogous to this.

[kurtilein3]

well, you more or less have a valid argument here.

but its a fact that many people argue that determinism disproves free will. i try to break that link, i want to prove that the fact that our brain is 100% deterministic is not enough to disprove free will. and this argument is coming up all the time, people argue that determinism alone completely rules out free will. its more difficult than that, thats my point.

[themilitantatheist]

Consider a thought experiment like the following: Suppose we have perfected a simulation of a human brain. We create two at first as a test and place them in a room (assume a human form body too). Would their interactions with the world after activation be identical?

I assert they would and furthermore they MUST be. Your thoughts?

[trick0171]

Agreed...However, for this experiment to work, they would have to be identical in every way. That means they would probably need to take up the same space/time as well. But even without that I am sure we could (theoretically) approximate that by assuring the exact experiences in the exact same room, but at different times.

[kurtilein3]

you are both right here.

but what if free will only arises based on all our past experiences we had so far in our life? in human life, it is not possible to have 2 human beings that went through exactly the same experiences. we definitively get tons of random experiences here.

[trick0171]

That is why he stated "simulation of a human brain"...because a simulation can be set up (programmed...whatever...) identically. That is the point. If they are identical, in an identical room, with identical experiences, free will assumes different choices can be made. I agree with themilitantathiest that they can not.

[themilitantatheist]

Yes exactly. Even if we could not have everything exactly correct (like occupy the same space-time) we would see a time, say t minutes where the actions were identical before they start to diverge. This is of course assuming it would be a chaotic dynamical system - which I have no formal proof for above my intuition.

[kurtilein3]

but i can make choices all the time. and i actually do it.

[trick0171]

of course you do....just not of your own "free will". :)

[DeletedDelusion]

Couldn´t it be possible that our brains are partly deterministic, but at the same time also a "random number generator" to a certain degree.

Why has it to be one or the other? It appears to me that we can find examples of both, chance and causality.

[themilitantatheist]

A partly deterministic machine gets the argument no where. Is a partly deterministic machine in any sense deterministic?

Define a "random number", define "chance", define "causality". I am not being a dick here but they all have very specific meanings in the fields of computation/physics. Your statements make little sense in their current form.

[kurtilein3]

themilitantatheist: we can simulate random numbers using completely deterministic programs in a way that it is completely impossible to distinguish the ``fake´´ random numbers from the real deal.

what if this is true for free will?

as dennett argues: magic tricks work, they do exist, but they arent considered REAL magic. only the magic that CANNOT be done is considered real magic. its a paradox. we have free will, and i dont believe in magic. tackle this ^^

[DeletedDelusion]

It´s hard to put it down in 500 characters.

Glad you asked.

With random numbers I meant

nonlinear dynamical systems like in the chaos theory. It appears random,and isn´t predictable.

If we are unable to track the cause of someting we use the term chance as a wildcard.

[themilitantatheist]

A chaotic nonlinear dynamical system is in NO sense random. Give me the same initial conditions (ok, ok roundoff errors, internal number handling etc... will create differences which will make the systems diverge) and I could simulate the system exactly the same. There is nothing random going on here.

[trick0171]

Even a random system is a deterministic one. You might thing that flipping a coin randomly chooses heads or tails, but how it lands and why it lands there is predetermined by the action and physics. Even a computer generated random number has factors that determine it, they are just so quick that we do not see them. Regardless, randomness itself is not "free will" anyway, as it does not include "choice" either. Choice and randomness cannot be combined.

[kurtilein3]

but then real randomness does not exist, according to your line of reasoning. but we still use the coin-flip if we want a random 50/50 outcome ^^ and it appears to work quite well.

according to your line of reasoning, how would you construct an experiment that provides a random result at the probability of 50% black 50% white?

what i want to say is... dont go too far ^^

[trick0171]

Well...randomness in the context that we utilize it exists. What I am saying is that it is part of determinism, not a separate or contradictory factor. Just because something has a 50/50 probability does not mean there are not CAUSES for the actual happenings (landing head or tails). That is an incorrect correlation. :)

[trick0171]

But you are correct...it is not "REAL randomness" technically...as the way I use the term only exists in the way of unpredictability.

[themilitantatheist]

That is exactly right. You can't have a random occurance if the system is entirely deterministic.

If you want REAL "random numbers" you need to appeal to a system that is not entirely deterministic such as thermal noise & QM, radioactive decay, etc...

You need to make sure you have the correct (ie formal) definitions of random, proability, chaos, etc...

[themilitantatheist]

You get a true 50/50 if you the flipper a)dont know the initial conditions (flip force, air speed, etc) and/or b) you can't simulate the process in your head.

It is not too hard to 'get a feel' for the flipping force required so you can close your eyes and 'predict the outcome' of your coin toss easily...

[kurtilein3]

in soccer, if they do the coin flip, the rules are that the coin needs to spin, and it needs to drop to the floor ^^

for me, its enough to call it random.

[themilitantatheist]

How can it be enough for you to call it random? It seems to me that one of your central beliefs are that random events can manifest IN a deterministic framework. Do you not concede that given all the information a coin toss is entirely predictable?

I would prefer a reply to some of the other serious questions being posed in this thread!

[kurtilein3]

``Do you not concede that given all the information a coin toss is entirely predictable?´´

yes, but, ive proven that this wont work with our mind. how do you want to predict how a person will decide, if some of the processes involved can only be predicted by making & running a copy of the thing, and those are interconnected with all the rest that is going on?

[themilitantatheist]

Well this is not what you originally said.

In such predictions can in principle be made then how can you still assert free will?

[kurtilein3]

i base all my decisions on the assumption that i actually can decide, i know that all my decisions depend on my previous knowledge. it might be all just an illusion, so i get advice from friends/family for important decisions to expand on my knowledge before deciding, or i do my own research, use the access to information that i have. wikipedia, library, youtube. but im in charge, im guiding myself through the process leading to the decision.

[trick0171]

But you are missing the point. EACH of those decisions to get advice, or to research at the library...are all part of the process. In other words, you have no actual FREE choice in those decisions either...any free will you see in them are illusionary. They may all lead up to another decision...but they run in order -cause-effect/cause -effect/cause, etc etc...

[kurtilein3]

if i cant make a change, then why bother living?

you also need to take that into consideration. i base all my actions on the assumption that i can make a change. if you would have managed to convince me some months ago that i dont have free will, i definitively wouldnt have started this youtube-channel.

[trick0171]

*"if i cant make a change, then why bother living?"*

If you can...then why bother living? Whether good or bad things happen due to causality, or they happen due to free will...does not change the pleasure or pain of living within it. But to be a logical or scientific part of the process, it is better to know and understand the truth than stay in an illusion for the comfort. Just know that whatever way you decide...you do not have a choice in the matter. :)

[HighwayToHell7]

I know this comment was made like a year ago, but isn't who you are (your character) completely determined by your genes and your environment? I mean how can we create ourselves so to speak? Aren't the desires you have and their particular strength beyond your control as well? I just don't see how we can make choices from what is essentially nothing. If our characters are beyond our control then how are we going to be ultimately responsible for any of the choices we make?

[kurtilein3]

highwaytohell7: maybe we should take a closer look at what you call "environment" here. my environment is the university where im studying, its the books i read, its the blogs i read and the lectures i watch and all the people i communicate with. my mind is connected to this entity called the scientific world, or the intellectual elite, this entity consists of minds, and the collective decisions this system makes and the ways it processes information are quite sophisticated.

[HighwayToHell7]

The environment I was referring to has to do with the manner in which you are raised (your parents, siblings, surroundings, etc.), which again is beyond your control.

[kurtilein3]

highwaytohell:

from this perspective, you need to answer some questions: how is it possible that there is a constant stream of scientific publications, expanding our knowledge, describing an experiment or a natural phenomenon or something else in a way it has never been described before? where does all the progress come from? for me, this shows that there do not seem to be the limitations that you would expect without any free will, we can choose to go beyond what has been done before.

[HighwayToHell7]

I don't see how determinism rules out new ideas. Einstein himself was a determinist and he came up with some of the most revolutionary ideas in human history. He obviously didn't see a contradiction, but it doesn't mean there isn't one. The problem remains how could Einstein really be the first cause or own cause of his ideas? Just because Einstein wasn't the first cause of these ideas doesn't mean they weren't new. Something caused Einstein to engage in thought experiments and someone...

[HighwayToHell7]

cont.

who had the exact same genes as Einstein, was raised exactly like him, and had the same life experiences would have come up with the theory of relativity as well. All of these factors taken together caused Einstein to think in a way no one else had. New things and ideas come about all the time. If we knew enough I'm sure we'd be able to figure out that creativity is for something new to come about by means of caused intention and caused skill, along with perhaps chance.

[HighwayToHell7]

cont.

Einstein was motivated/had a desire to answer some of the most fundamental questions of the universe. There were conditions that obviously facilitated/caused Einstein to have this motivation/desire. We don't get to choose what we will so to speak. Sometimes our brains are sparked when we expereince the most novel things. An example would be the myth of Newton coming up with the theory of gravity after an apple feel on his head.

[rob1n007]

Interesting, i followed this debate on youtube for a long time. 98% is determined. 2% i don't know... I thought about quantummechanics in our brains (QM = non deterministic)

[kurtilein3]

my point is that EVEN IF our brain is 100,00% deterministic, this is not enough to disprove free will. random input is enough to allow for the possibility of free will, even if the system is completely deterministic.

and keep in mind that i do not distinguish between ``real´´ free will (i even consider this impossible) and a perfect simulation/emulation of pseudo-free will which is completely similar to ``real´´ free will.

[themilitantatheist]

Now we have that 'technicality' out of the way I still don't see what you are getting at...

What do you mean by deterministic programs?

What do you mean by deterministic machine?

What do you mean by deterministic system?

When you invoke your "1:1 copy" you are creating a new system with identical initial conditions - this will always return the same answer given the framework you define. It is the initial sensitivity that creates the "non-determinism".

[themilitantatheist]

Anyway for a real discussion on this we need to define the terms "free will" and "determinism". Else we will go around in circles with semantics. I would define free will as: Ability to make a decision that is reached entirely by internal means - that is with no causation to any external stimuli. How do you define free will?

[trick0171]

Exactly. And I think he may be confusing a turing maching (TM) with a theoretical non-deterministic turing machine (NTM). And even if an NTM is created, it does not prove "free will". It just has more computational pathways and branches accordingly. It is not used in the same sense as the "determinism vs free will" issue.

[themilitantatheist]

I mean even invoking NTM's as a model for the brain it is provable that we dont get anything extra.

I still do not see what extra kurtilein3 thinks he is getting by making the assertion the brain is Turing complete. Surely anyone studying computational complexity would assert this...

Without a working definition of free will though further insight is pointless at best.

[trick0171]

Agreed. I may be working off of a completely different premise without knowing how he is defining "free will". I am assuming his definition has "...and actions independent of external causes" or something of that sort in it...but it may not. :)

[kurtilein3]

the problem is that we need to deal with the absence of real theories here. this is why possible future discoveries as well as other fields of science have to be used here. at the moment, i made my points as strong as possible, i am aware of the fact that there might be gaps, but i suppose that what we already know is enough to disconnect determinism from free will. i am not invoking NTM's, im trying to make the point that determinism is not enough to discard free will.

[trick0171]

*"im trying to make the point that determinism is not enough to discard free will."*

Understood, but you must understand the me (and possibly themilitantatheist) wouldn't necessarily disagree with that, but we would see it in the same light as "gravity is not enough to discard the idea that the law of gravity does not apply everywhere in the universe". The point being that the deterministic stance applying everywhere is the most probable based on our current knowledge.

[trick0171]

...but who knows. Maybe some day we will find out that dual-time supercausality (the idea of cause/effect flowing in both directions of time) is able to, at certain times, place a person in a state of "free will". At THIS point the evidence does not support that.

[themilitantatheist]

I think I would go even further than that and say "gravity is not enough to say if I have odd coloured socks on".

I see zero connection between determinism (of the underlying machine), decidability, TM's, and the notion of free will.

I could design a deterministic program that could choose 1 of N options based on external stimuli, previous knowledge, etc... An external entity would class it as a 'free choice' because the information being used is not visible to the observer.

[themilitantatheist]

I still do not see in any way what invoking any theories from computation gets you.

If the brain is a TM or NTM I do not see what connection this has with the concept of "free will". Especially since TM's and NTM's are completely equivalent.

[trick0171]

Agreed. It is so bizarre to me. If anything, IMO... invoking theories from computation strengthens the deterministic stance. We understand how computers and programs work, and we know that "free will" of any sort is not viable.

[sickliberal]

Thank you for these very clarifying comments. As a philosophy student I really appreciate science updates. I have quite naturally accepted the dichotomy, because of hundreds of years worth of reasoning applied it. I assumed that my arguing for free will would have to come from direct experience/phenomenology. So not from natural science. But if the neocortex would be the place where this experience occurred, there really is no radical split between the two.

[sickliberal]

But to my surprise you argued in a similar direction for which i was too cautious to go in because i had no scientific backup of my story, and i didn't just want to say 'well we experience that we really do make choices in the present, so there!'

[themilitantatheist]

Be careful because I understand the science that is being invoked here and I am not convinced it is getting us anywhere.

[sickliberal]

I cannot keep up with the two of you at this pace.. I'll just see where you guys are heading and read back later.. For me not all arguments you are making here are relevant because i want to deal with the ethical implications of your arguments primarily.

[themilitantatheist]

Oh, ok. The subtle point about turing completeness is that the machine in question is allowed inifinite time and space - this comes directly from the Church-Turing thesis. Saying the brain is Turing complete merely asserts it is possible in principle - this was never in doubt. Not for me anyway.

I dont ususally call such devices "Turing machines" simply because they are not. Adding the practical limitations bounds their power.

[kurtilein3]

if a real turing-machine would exist, it would solve a lot of problems ^^

some days i like to watch the conways's game of life-programs that calculate all prime numbers, or all couples of prime numbers that only have one number inbetween, its amazing to see how they grow and spread and how the armys of gliders filter out the wrong numbers.

[themilitantatheist]

I dont think you appreciate what a TM actually is. If we could build one right now it would not solve anything better/quicker than current machines.

[kurtilein3]

there is even a program that will calculate all fermat primes... it calculates all fermat primes that are known to this day quite quickly, and it is set up so that the pattern will catastrophically self-destruct into chaos as soon as it finds the next one ^^ conway's game of life is a thing of beauty.

[themilitantatheist]

Again you seem to fall into the trap that the brain has to BE a turing machine.

Lets just get this out of the way right now: The brain is not and CANNOT BE a turing machine. By very definition the proof is trivial and is the same for any machine that we could build.

[kurtilein3]

well, okay, there is no unlimited data storage so there are no universal computers.

but its enough for our mind, its enough for youtube and wikipedia, its enough for highly sophisticated simulations, its enough for world of warcraft, so i guess this question is rather theoretical in nature. if it grows to large, buy more hardware ;)

[themilitantatheist]

This is the point.

You are making assertions about theoretical objects that DO NOT hold arbitrarily to real machines. TM's are an absraction to probe the limits of computability. We can now agree and tackle the rest of the video! :D

[Clutchology]

Now I think I understand where you are coming from more. It's a very interesting proposition. I will have to think on this and see how it incorporates into the available theories. Thank you for a thought provoking video.

[kurtilein3]

well, the problem is that at the moment there isnt really much around when it comes to theory. thats why i need to hijack other fields of science to make my points ^^

but there is definitively a lot going on, different teams of scientists are in some kind of a race to be the first ones to tie their names to major breakthroughs. the race is on, and more and more scientists realize that it might all be in reach.

[trick0171]

kurtilein3: I agree with most of the things that you state with the exception of this one issue. Even in the scientific and quantum mechanical level, cause and effect is shown and we have yet to "find" an instance that we know does not have a cause. The non-deterministic idea is a very dogmatic stance, even more so when you take it to the synapse/chemical level.

[trick0171]

"As soon as the input is a little bit different..."

Of course changes will happen...but the INPUT is part of the program when talking free will. I agree that our brain is like a turing machine...but a turing machine does not have "free will". It has output based on input. Even if a program is nested within 100 other programs...that does not change the fact of cause / effect.

[trick0171]

"It is not possible to disprove freewill"

No...this is where you are confused IMO. The deterministic stance is the probable stance because all things in the natural world that we know of show cause and effect relationships. At that point the burden is to prove freewill (not disprove it), because that is the extraordinary belief.

[robshred66]

You just said that your decision in that "free will" instance you mentioned would influence future decisions. So how is this first instance any different from the second?

[kurtilein3]

the first instance changes the rules, the second time you are just following your own rules of behaviour. which is what you are doing most of the time.