@HedgehogRebellion Your brain may have determined which girl you prefer, but your action of sliding onto the stage was something you chose to do as a result of free will.
@HedgehogRebellion Well let's assume first that both guys find the girl to be attractive. So they have the same basic physical attraction to the girl. As far as why one might jump on stage and one might not, there can be a plethora of reasons about that. But either way, it's a decision they're making in that moment. Maybe one of them has a gf, maybe they're shy, maybe they don't think that behavior is appropriate, etc. But regardless, they're choosing to make that decision.
@pawnstar3 Their decision is made by their brain, right? Let me stop you first...if you DONT agree that the decision is made by the brain then I suggest you visit the NeuroPsych floor of your local University and they can explain it to you...but I digress.
@HedgehogRebellion Of course it's made by their brain - and please calm down before you have a stroke. Although, according to you , that's already pre-determined so nothing you can do will change that anyway.
@HedgehogRebellion Computers don't make choices - human beings make choices for computers. We created them and we control them. Maybe if someone believed in an almighty creator (God) then you could argue that God has some sort of master plan (fate) and he controls everything we do. But I don't believe in God and I believe in the power of the brain and all of its functions including critical thinking, intelligence, decision-making, etc.
choice/CHois/Noun: An act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities.
Standard Piece of Programming Code:
If x then do this
If y then do something else
Sorry man...a computer recieves input...analyzes it...and then performs an action based on what is input, which conforms to the definition of choice given above.
@HedgehogRebellion Does a computer have the ability to think critically? To weigh decisions and understand consequences of decisions? Does it have a moral compass? I'll keep coming again - thanks a lot
@pawnstar3 what will we say when they bcum sophisticated enough to do all the thinks you mentioned? They have wiring...we have wiring. The real differences are that their circuits are faster bcuz silicone conducts signals faster than our neurons do, but we have more complex brains with each neuron making muktiple connections. I have a degree in NeuroSci and a diploma in Programming. I think I know what Im talking about.
@HedgehogRebellion I can tell you don't have an English degree by the amount of gross misspellings in that post. What do your degrees mean to this discussion? Having an understanding of the brain doesn't mean you have an understanding of the philosophy of free will, determinism, compatibilism, etc. Computers are man-made machines. Machines aren't humans. Do machines understand morality?
@pawnstar3 Can you prove we have free will, instead of simply doing what is in our nature. If you can, get back. If you can't...don't. Im not interested in your metaphysical speculations...only proof.
@HedgehogRebellion Why are you dichotomizing our nature from free will - they coexist. We are our brains. The way you're presenting it is that we're slaves to our brains as if the self is a separate entity from the brain. It's the same with nature and nurture - they coexist.
@pawnstar3 On this point we seem to have reached an accord..."We are our brains!" This is the whole essence of my stance.
Now to say that we have Free Will seems to suggest that we are somehow morally blameworthy for our behaviour. But to be morally blameworthy there must have been an option for us to chose not to do it. But if WE ARE OUR BRAIN then there was no choice...we do what we do bcuz we are who we are.
@HedgehogRebellion We are definitely in agreement that we are our brains. Where I differ from you (and all determinists) and where I would probably align myself with a more compatiblistic approach is that free will can co-exist with that dynamic. I do think we are morally blameworthy for our behavior. We can't choose what we will, but we can choose how to act on what we will.
@pawnstar3 Now I have heard of compatibilism but I am not sure by what mechanism it bases itself on. If you could give me a brief outline I would read it over.
In my view there is only 1 of 2 options:
1: FW simply does not exist
2: FW does somehow exist BUT...as we can never 100% predict the consequences of our actions we are still not really "in control" of our lives...do you follow me?
I peeked at your channel and you seem to be bright but I would like a more clear rationale of FW
@HedgehogRebellion Well I think "in control" is a very subjective phrase. I don't view free will as being in control of things per se. You're only in control of the decisions you're making. I think part of the problem with the free will debate is that the term free will almost needs to be more clearly defined first so that everyone is on the same page. A lot of things are out of our control (external forces, accidents, luck, butterfly effect, etc) but I do think our consciousness and ......
@HedgehogRebellion cont'd .... ability to think critically, understand right and wrong (morality) etc demonstrates that we have the free will to do those things. Again, I think a big key is what one means when they say free will. The compatiblist position defines free will differently more so as someone being free to act. The will is fixed, but the acting on the wall is what makes the person free. I have a feeling that you disagree with that definition though?
@pawnstar3 Before I try to get too technical, let me give a bit of background.
For part of my undergrad I did a parer on the neurophysiological differences b/t the average person and a psychopath. These people have shown on EEG that when it comes to making moral decisions the areas of the brian responsible for moral behaviour do not light up (prefrontal cortex).
That was the first time I was exposed to the idea that our character and all it entails...the ability to make moral judgements...
@pawnstar3 Cont'd...is limited by our biological makeup. Even as far back as Roman days the physician Galen noted that soldiers who suffered blows o th head would display different personality traits after the battle.
So given the evidence that our moral character is based on our neural wiring...I cannot see any definition of FW that would entail a sense that we can pick and chose our moral stance. We can learn new moral ideas...but even these lessons are stored in abrain already DNA defined
Point 2: Here's the kicker...IT'S BOTH! What we are is the result of how our experiences have acted since our birth on the brain we were born with.
Say you have an equation...x + 1 =y...and you decide you will plug 1 into the x factor. The result will be 2 WHy? Because the result was dictated by two things...the input (1) and the effect that going through the equation HAD an 1 (to add 1 to it).
SWO it is always BOTH...and nothing else, follow....
Point 3: The equation left the result no choice. We could not plug 1 into the equation and get a different result...no matter how many times we try.
POINT 3: So as our brains have a starting condition at birth, defined by our DNA. Like the equation, life experience operates to modify the staring factor. BUT THAT IS IT...like the equation...if a PERFECT copy of YOU was confronted with a decision...it would make the exact same decision? So in what SENSE is it 'free'? See?
@HedgehogRebellion But here's the thing - the difference between animals and humans in intellect. As humans, we are conscious and aware of our existence, are able to process information, make choices, etc. When we make a choice, yes I agree that multiple things can influence that decision. The philosopher Schopenhauer had a great line - he said we are free to do what we will but not will what we will. That to me sums it up. CONT'd....
@HedgehogRebellion I think equations don't do the human brain justice. Regardless of what is contributing to the brain making the ultimate decision, the fact that the brain (or simply us) can make that decision and comprehend the implications or moral consequences, etc. proves that we have free will. I think our definitions of free will are slightly different. I think determinism and free will go hand in hand basically.
@pawnstar3 lets examine the brain and an equation. Both are systems that accept input...process it...and produce a result. Now, if someone is not willing to accept that both are deterministic systems than I can go no further. I think I would find it more satisfying if you said WHY you dont think equations do the brain justice...I cannot answer a statement that does not provide a basis for its validity.
If it is deterministic, then it simply does what is in its nature and has no real choice.
@HedgehogRebellion But the brain doesn't simply accept and process - it also analyzes and is cognizant of its own existence and abilities. Again, the human brain is much more complex than a simple equation. The problem with the whole free will debate is what difference does it make ultimately?It's not like changing your mind about which theory you support will change your decisions. By the way, do you believe in God? I'm curious to see how that plays into your analysis.
@pawnstar3 Lets look at the terms you are using to describe two functions...process and analyze...but analyzing information is how the brain processes the information that goes thru it.
Also, to be cognizant is once again just the brain processing information, in this case awareness of its own characteristics. But when a computer does a self-diagnostic is it not just doing a similar thing with a less complex system?
@HedgehogRebellion Well I think consciousness and intelligence is what gives people the ability to make choices of their own will. I think in many ways we actually agree, but it's more on the point of how we classify the brain as its own entity. Let me try this very simple equation. A is the brain and B is the person. If we agree that a person is essentially their brain, then we can safely say that A= B. If we say that the brain has the ability to make choices, ....
@HedgehogRebellion part 2....then the person since they are their brain has the ability to make choices. See I agree with you that part of what's effecting the choice is experience, brain chemistry, etc. But since we're our brains anyway, that is essentially us making that choice. There is no distinction between a person and their brain. The danger of what you're saying is that moral responsilbity can be evaded.
@pawnstar3 Yes, I efinitely believe in God, but not thru logic...at the risk of sounding immmodest my belief stems from personal experience. Of course, that leaves me in no position to argue logically that God exists. I cannot provide any evidence of my experience and I would not blame anyone for being skeptical, nor could I argue with them.
/thusly I have nothing i could say that would work God into my theory.
@HedgehogRebellion The reason I brought up God is that God is said to have given people free will - that's what the whole Adam and Eve parable alludes to in fact.
@pawnstar3 At this point Im going to ask you to swing by my channel and check out my video. The reason I put it up was so that I could try and deliever the bulk of my argument in one clean stroke. If you do...great...if you dont...OK...I hope you do.
@HedgehogRebellion I did watch the video. There are some points I definitely agree with but I still disagree with the notion that we don't have free will. Again, we are our brains. It seems like you're explaining the functions of the brain but to me that can go hand in hand with free will - instead of negating it. Why do people agonize over certain decisions or have regrets? Why try to convince me that free will doesn't exist if I can't choose to change my mind about it?
The kicker! What is our personality if not an sum totaling of our values? Here's where we get back into the whole PersonalityBrainDNALuck chain of reasoning.
We can change. Right now you are reading my words and your brain is processing the information which may cause you to change your mind. But whether it changes or not is determined by what you already believe, which is the result of how your life experinces up till this very second have acted on the brain you were born with!
@HedgehogRebellion Again, I think that free will and determinism actually co-exist. I think the problem lies in how we define these things essentially. I actually saw a decent video today on here which talks a bit about this discussion. If you're interested, search "energy matter and information" by a user called professoranton - let me know what you think if you do watch it - it has some decent points especially towards the end.
@pawnstar3 I got halfway thru, and i just asked him if he would hit my videoup and ask if he would check it out, he was hitting up so many points in such rapid succesion that i could not identify a consistent theme relative to my argument.
@HedgehogRebellion Yeah his video was a bit all over the place but it was basically stating something similar to what I was saying in terms of compatibilism. My suggestion to you would be to look up compatibilism on the web (even wikipedia has a good page on it) and see if you can agree with the basic aspects of it. To me, compatiblism is the most sensible answer to the question of free will and determinism since it has ways of incorporating both sensibly.
@pawnstar3 It seems to me that one of the reasons people believe in FW is becasue they LIKE TO FEEL in control of their lives. That seems to be the promise that FW offers. I am not saying that is the SOLE grounds for a belief in FW, but for reasons I have just outlined I do not believe that is a promise FW can make.
He's essentially an incompatibilist, I mean an agent's aversion is contingent on it's indeterminism, as if it's determined to avoid a particular occurrence then free will is annihilated. Determinism is the doctrine that all occurrences are determined by causality, he's insinuating agents are in some sense separate from universal deterministic laws. It's really a libertarianist approach...
I think freedom of mind and determinism don't contradict each other. Don't forget that freedom of mind is viewed from a personal level with you as an active entity. However, we are also the result of our environment and we pass a point in time only once. So maybe we are destined to act like we act, however we don't know that! Take a novel or a movie, where each character has thought processes and drives while the progression is predefined, one is viewed from the inside and one from the outside.
Dennett doesn't make a case against determinism. That's not his position. He's a compatibilist, i.e., he thinks (and in his book "Freedom Evolves" he argues) that determinism is compatible with free will.
once hominids became top dogs on the planet, we operated under different evolutionary principles. we were not bound to a 'niche' any more, and were free to develop moralities and principles, looking ahead in time, not having things dictated by predators/prey.
this is why i think we are a 'super species', because we are of different blood types, o,a,b,ab, none of which had to die out, re-mixing with divergent species like neanderthals.
1) Every particle in the universe might well be obeying rigid laws with only one possible outcome from one instant to the next
2) Someone who takes a decision can have sufficient knowledge and competence to be held accountable for that decision
How can these both be true?
It's the same question as ''how can I be alive when my atoms aren't?''. Things have meaning at some levels whilst being meaningless at other levels. Sometimes an apparent paradox is just a change of perspective.
I don't see how Dennett makes a case against determanism?
avoidance may be a property, but in a deterministic universe it is only a probability. the agent/avoider has the evolutionary capacity to avoid the spear and therefore he MUST avoid the spear! except he also has the evolutionary capacity to "choose" not to do so. but in that case it was also predetermined because he has exactly that mindset through cause and effect of the universe. or am I missing something here?
@TheNinerion You're absolutely right. This video is definitely not an argument against determinism. It's an argument in favour of determinism being completely compatible with moral responsibility and free will. The point is that even if no other decision was ever going to be made, a person's detailed rationale for making it is sufficient to assess their culpability. Indeterminate futures of particles wouldn't increase free will, it'd reduce it because spear-dodging (etc) would be harder.
To me it felt like clever word play to temporarily tie the brain in a knot, allbeit a loose one. If determinism is true then the evitability of any given situation would be inevitable and the inevitability of any given situation would also be inevitable. Simply put: both evitable events and inevitable events are inevitable in a deterministic world.
@fizzyfox No, it was clever word play, but not to tie your brain in a knot. He's saying that the concept of Determinism is itself a knot that we should rid our brains of. Because we know certain things are avoidable -- we have the agency to avoid the spear -- the attempt to apply Determinism at some higher, vaguer level is illegitimate.
So don't use the word inevitable... it was used incorrectly. but that's beside the point, it doesn't mean determinism isn't true! Your 'avoidance' fit into the definition of determinism because any choice you make no matter how many changes you make or how random your choosing is, it was always going to happen given the environment was the the same. BEING A SPEAR AVOID-ER IS PART OF GENETICS/INSTINCT AND THEREFORE PREDICTABLE (if someone could read the sign of the universe perfectly)
dawkins says the middle world,refering to atomic physics,is one humans cannot understand...so dawkins doesn't understand the building blocks of the universe,but he can tell us there's no god....
i'm saying it's not possible to know,one way or the other...he shouldn't be so sure of himself... when he says he,and humans in general,cannot understand how the world is put together,how can he then think there is no higher intelligence? because there is no evidence? nature is smarter than we are...and so perfectly put together,how can he put that down to chance?? ridiculous...he's one of the smart stupid people....
i'm not in full awareness of dawkins's view on this matter, i can only speak for myself.
even if the observable world, or the world we have access to cannot be fully comprehended (which may or may not be true), trying to explain it by means of a hypothetical realm of the supernatural constitutes a fallacy from ignorance.
"nature is smarter than we are"
i really don't know what you mean by this. i imagine you don't mean it literally since nature is not a conscious entity.
einsteins law has a flaw,it breaks down in black holes-nature is smarter than we are-the big bang theory is a theory,nothing more-there is no unified theory of everything-gravity and quantum physics don't mix-scientists say how complicated and beautiful the world is...any reasonable person would have to believe something/someone created that...all the evidence suggests it is an intelligence, higher intelligence than humans-i'm no religious freak,i think it's sensible to have that opinion....
the fact that our physical surroundings- which do not constitue the entire universe- have a particular balance that favors our existence does not give enough reason to believe the universe is teleologically conditioned.
Just because we can't explain certain aspects of the universe does not mean you can put it down to intelligence. And if the universe was somehow designed, humans would certainly be a bi-product of such a universe, a coincidence, not designed by the creator. Yes the universe is bizarrely incomprehensible. 2000 years ago the sun rising and setting was such. Back then this meant that God did it. If, now, something is bizarrely incomprehensible to humans, you cannot invoke that God did it.
@Sirstingray humans will never understand the universe...from how it started to gravity to black holes to infinity to atoms...richard dawkins has no idea whether or not there is a god...and being arrogant about it doesn't change that...he was very arrogant about james lovelocks' gaia,he was wrong....
Dawkins, I'm sure, would agree that humans will never fully understand the universe. He will also agree that he can't possibly know if there is a God or not. All we can do is look at the evidence for there being a theistic God (there's remarkably little by the way) and judge based on these conclusions. No-one can ever know, therefore all we can do is make the best guess. Dawkins is not in my opinion arrogant about this, only explicit and clear. He might be in yours.
@tkshots He doesn't tell us there's no god, he says he doesn't believe in god because of insufficient evidence whereas other people believe in god without needing a shred of evidence, i.e faith. Whether or not there is a god is unknown as you can't prove or disprove it, so it's whether you use common sense or blind faith as your means to make up your mind. I, like Dawkins, choose to use common sense and he's merely trying to urge the rest of the world to follow suit.
It would seem that man has been hit by many bricks that were told, well in advance, were on there way but they still hit home with that sickening thud of inevitability and promise.
Because man, ignored the shouts of here it comes or seen them as the uttering of an old fool.
Keep your head up. ear's pricked and eyes open and we may catch some of these flying bricks.
So therefore avoiding the crushing impact meted out by the said brick and avoid been ridiculed as a fool for not listening.
Dennet confuses evitability in actions of specific things (ie, avoiding a spear makes that evitable by definition), with evitability of the future (ie. it was inevitable that the person WOULD avoid the spear). The future is indeed inevitable when it comes to the future if determinism is true.
Evitable by definition means "capable of being avoided or warded off". If it is capable to avoid a spear it is evitable. That does not mean the actual avoidance of the spear could have happened any other way. Posing the word "evitable" to the future is DIFFERENT than posing the word "evitable" to the spear. Saying a comment is "stupid" is NOT an argument.
Cough...ad-hominem. Sorry I commented. You obviously do not understand the content of the videos that you post very well, so when someone makes a comment against it you can only revert to logical fallacies to defend it and give them thumbs down.
Have you even studied Dennett's adaptationist views, in line with the thinking of ethologist Richard Dawkin? Obviously NOT, or you wouldn't be embarrassing yourself with this absurd statements....You are obviously a crude determinist. What a joke your arguments are.
"And you are obviously oblivious to the any possibility of understanding of philosophy."
And I would argue that my "obliviousness" is only "obvious" to someone that is already oblivious to understanding philosophy. Especially when they can not use a real argument to debate my logic and have to revert to ad-hominem attacked and questioning a persons education on the subject unwarrantedly.
And yes, I own and have read Dennett's book "Freedom Evolves" if you must know. I have also read three books that Dawkin's has written. What I am saying is, that Dennett makes some incorrect leaps in his logic to show compatabilism with free will and determinism.
You aren't just a simple determinist, trick0171. You're a sloppy inflexible hard determinist...So you own a book of Dennetts. So you don't a superficial reading of it. In spite of the fact that your lips undoubtedly moved while you were reading, you did understand ANYTHING you read. Dennett's point is that determinism consists of the rules of the game of life. That doesn't mean that the rules fix every aspect of life. Saying it does is ridiculous. You're saying what happens happens. Determinism?
Notice that I use the word FREEDOM not FREE WILL. Since fatalism, as a response to the non-existence of free will, is a deeply mistaken response, one that confuses determinism for powerlessness, we neednt pretend to have free will just to avoid it. The traditional notion of the freely willing agent does nothing to give us real, causal powers the powers of desire, rationality, and skill that we dont already have in some measure. Actions do make a difference, in that they have effects
You silly summary discounts agency. You make the absurd point that tautologically whatever happens is determined to happen in a deterministic system. That argument is sophomoric and pointless.
You are simplistic fatalist. Pure and simple. Fatalism is the view that we are powerless to do anything other than what we actually do. It may be argued for in various ways: by appeal to logical laws and metaphysical necessities; by appeal to the existence and nature of God; by appeal to causal determinism. You base your fatalism on causal determinism.
Arrgh...debating you is like debating a creationist. You use words like "sloppy and inflexible" but do not back it up with proper logic. If you actually READ Dennett's work, it is about having FREE WILL....not just "FREEDOM". If you look at the logic I displayed, that is EXACTLY Dennetts argument. You use the word "fatalism" as if it is some sort of "bad word", for no reason. You clain something as "sophmoric and pointless" without backing it up with any logic what so ever.
While the cartoon wall was, in principle, avoidable, it was inevitable that the deterministic Mickey Mouse would walk into it.
Line 3 is where Dennett's argument falls apart.
Try debating the actual logic, instead of purely ad-hominem attacks and calling my logic "sophmoric". If it is so "sophmoric" you should be able to use LOGIC to show the flaws in it. The problem is you cannot, because Dennett's argument is seriously flawed.
It is perfectly legitimate to make a value judgment about the intellectual rigor of an argument with words like "sophomoric" (I took the liberty of correcting you misspelling of the word). Your argument is completely absurd. In fact, it differs almost not at all from good old Calvinist predestination, except you don't have any overt reasons for your fatalistic conclusions. For you, what happens is what happens. Dennett says yes the future is the what happens in the future. That's certainly
(this comment it the conclusion of my previous comment)
trivially true. But the argument doesn't end there. And it doesn't end there because of AGENCY and ADAPTIVE STRATEGIES.
I use freedom in spite of Dennett's use of free will because his use of that word burdens his argument with the unnecessary baggage of too often becoming embroiled in the tired old debate of free will and its implications.
Too bad your insufferable arrogance isn't matched by your ability to frame logical arguments.
First off...you make the assumption that I am a fatalist. Second, you do not seem to understand what fatalism means. Third I understand the importance of causality, fixing problems at or close to causal base, importance of memes, etc., so if you think a fatalist doesn't then I am not one per your definition...OR you are defining it incorrectly (I am not a defeatist...which is different).
Fourth, Dennett contrives a "free will" from agents incorrectly, and his conclusion is false. My entire argument is on free will...the type that Dennett contrives. The clip you have displayed is the crux of Dennetts argument, so if you mean something else by it you probably need a different video. Fifth, I also am agnostic regarding if indeterministic elements exist in QM (though I weigh more on not). (More...)
And last, you claim that I am arrogant purely on me making an argument? You "correct my spelling" as a way to say "look you don't know how to spell a word, so you must not know what you are talking about". I am not the arrogant pone.
I came on here to make a comment about the video or possibly debate about it in a friendly fashion. I do not enjoy getting "snippy" back at you, so I do apologize if my comments seem or are rude, as that was not my initial intention. I just do not like being character attacked as if you know something about me based on a few comments. Anyway, Im sorry if I seemed rude, because as I look back at my comments it appears I have.
I'm giving up...You are tilting at arguments which neither I nor Dennett makes. Your final point about being 'agnostic regarding if indeterministic elements exist' undercuts every point of your previous 'logical' argument.
"Your final point about being 'agnostic regarding if indeterministic elements exist' undercuts every point of your previous 'logical' argument."
No it doesn't. It is not MY logical argument, but Dennett's argument in which I am showing why his argument is flawed (logically). We haven't even talked about MY arguments regarding why freewill cannot exist in either a deterministic (causal) or indeterministic (random) universe.
The better question is how can free will exist (at all) in biological agents that are deterministic? By contriving a definition of free will that is not free, not willed, or neither free nor willed. Sort of like redefining the moon as the sun and telling people you have moonburn. ;)
@trick0171 haha ya, i kind of feel and think that like, compatibalism is basically determinism redefined for the people who were to scared by how it sounded to really contemplate and accept it... LIke, exactly as you said, the biological agents are deterministic... So everything is deterministic.... I just think this compatibalism stuff is just determinism redefined for the defintion sensitive...
I admit in advance that I have not read Freedom Evolves, though I have put a few of Dennett's other books through the old mill...
It has been my impression that Dennett makes a distinction between physical determinism and effective determinism. The physical processes in the brain may be determined by predisposition and environment, but those processes have reached a complexity that cannot be objectively determined before they become action.
I think this distinction is flawed. When you say "objectively determined" I think you may mean objectively predicted, which is entirely different than determined. Determinism does not mean human predictability. For example, the uncertainty principle is compatible with causality (determinism). Regardless... (MORE)
If you are talking about physical processes in the brain, neuroscience is getting very close to showing this objectivity. Scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences were able to predict the outcome of a decision up to 7 seconds before a person thinks he/she is consciously making the decision.
"Scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences were able to predict the outcome of a decision up to 7 seconds before a person thinks he/she is consciously making the decision."
Frankly, that is one interpretation of the experiment (if it is the same one I have read). And there are several problems with extrapolating further from it.
...For one thing, the experiment was based on a very simple physical task, with clearly outlined parameters. This contributed dramatically to the reduction of noise in the brain and factors contributing to the decision process.
Secondly, multiple parts of the test results were subjective and/or iterative.
Ultimately all the experiment shows is that our experience of the decision making process is made up of many parts.
Unless this is a different experiment. What is your source?
My source is Nature Neuroscience, feel free to look it up on Google (it's probably the same)
I agree with you on the "simple physical tasks part" (pressing a button), hence the reason I stated they are getting "close"; but I disagree with you on your "subjective" results claim.
What the results do show is, at least for simple tasks, we can know a decision before the person is aware they have made one. In other words, causality to a decision precedes conscious awareness of it.
"but I disagree with you on your "subjective" results claim."
The thing is, the experiment asks a person to not only press a button, but to report the time at which they felt the conscious urge to press the button, which is where subjectivity enters the process.
There is no version of the experiment that I have seen that removes this subjective element. There is a lot of room in this element for more to be going on than the experiment assumes.
Ah I understand what you are saying. You are not claiming the scientists are being subjective, but rather the subject is (of course).
Any experiment that attempts to measure the time of conscious awareness must ask the subject when they are aware. That is the whole point, that our measurement precedes this "subjective" conscious awareness.
"That is the whole point, that our measurement precedes this "subjective" conscious awareness."
Aye, but therein lies the problem. If subjective awareness is emergent of other processes, and you add in the fact that reporting the experience is also going to require processing and time... basically, until we have a better idea of what is actually going on, any objective statement you could make about which process proceeds which with regard to consciousness is going to be speculative.
I don't see it as a problem, nor do I see it as subjective from the perspective of the experiment. If the subject is watching a second hand on a clock, and is asked to make a decision and record the time of that decision based on the second hand, that is when they (subjectively) have the conscious thought of the decision. It is not speculation. (MORE)
The entire point of the experiment is to show that the (subjective) awareness IS emergent of other processes that precede it, and that no real willful decision is being made due to that. I think it does this well.
...it isn't a discrete point, but something that looks more like a quantum wave function... a rippling 3D splash of variable density that is under constant self revision. What time they choose to report is a separate decision making act in which they are trying to remember an obscure piece of data from another decision, and all of these choices are being made on scales with much less resolution than the scanners... to say you have accurate data from a set up like that is almost ludicrous.
"awareness IS emergent of other processes that precede it"
I hate this bit the most. They assume that the decision is preceding the awareness, instead of the decision making process being identical with the awareness. The only thing we've been able to show with any accuracy, anywhere, is that we are horrible judges of what is going on in our subjective mind. Our awareness at any moment is a fuzzy ball of a few seconds ago, now and the next instant all at once...
"instead of the decision making process being identical with the awareness"
If we are unaware of the decision making process, and we can know the outcome of that process 7 seconds before there is awareness of it, how can it be identical to the awareness. The point is that there is this underlying process in which we have no conscious awareness of that makes the decision for us, and our awareness of it happens afterward.
"and we can know the outcome of that process 7 seconds before there is awareness of it"
First off, the predictive time frame is more like 2 seconds and their actually measuring in miliseconds. The feeling of "willing" to do something is a fantastically vague idea and the internal awareness of the activity within the conscious mind is so fuzzy, I really do not think that the subjects are capable of accurately judging the information they are required to provide.
"The point is that there is this underlying process in which we have no conscious awareness of that makes the decision for us"
But that isn't born out by the facts. One could just as easily come to the conclusion that this experiment only shows that self reflective awareness is simply not a good judge of its own activities.
If a person observes a quick series of events, the person may be able to tell you a lot of details about each event, but be unable to sequence or even distinguish them.
Where is this 7 is mor like 2 seconds coming from? I still say you are confusing what we consider "awareness", with this "fuzzy thinking" that we would not consider aware (in the sense needed to help the compatibalist stance). We are not asking the subject to detail out the process of the decision, only to note when they feel they have experiences awareness of it.
-"The large number of perceptually simultaneous responses provides a further measure of the difficulty of the judgment. There are thus a very broad range of stimulus delays in which the subject is unable to make an accurate ordering response."- Stanley A. Klein
And this is just a portion of one out of a dozen critiques I've found of the subjective response problem. I'll have to hit the science library once I get on campus to read more than just the abstracts.
"Where is this 7 is mor like 2 seconds coming from?"
2000 miliseconds is the result obtained in the only video of the experiment that I have found. Some literature on the topic report as high as 10 seconds, but give no details as to procedure or data.
Ok, they know ten seconds ahead of time, using a favorable calculation on latency, that the part of your brain responsible for rehearsing actions has the plan all lined up and ready to sign... They were right 60% of the time which is between 5% and 15% better than chance and their test group was 14 individuals.
Yeah, it's neat, but it still doesn't address any of the problems of subjective reporting or what the exact interactions are. They even said as much in their brief.
Again, I am not claiming any absolutes based on the experiment, just showing an example of how neuroscience is getting very close in this regard ...with the expectation of an increase in this direction down the road. It is supportive, not conclusive.
Now logic, on the otherhand, is fairly conclusive that free will is not compatible with determinism (unless we redefine "free will" in a way that is not free or not willful (Such as Dennett attempts to do).
"Now logic, on the otherhand, is fairly conclusive that free will is not compatible with determinism"
I have not problem with the lack of some kind of magical freedom from causality... the reason I hate these experiments so much is that epiphenomenalists use it to try and suggest that consciousness is little more than an accidental voyeur.
What we are dealing with in these experiments is so simple it might be what athletes call the "zone", the kinds of events where conscious awareness....
...actually steps aside so that a more streamlined system can take over. I have serious doubts about the experiment and what it is ACTUALLY testing vs what they think they are testing.
Now, put a Go master in an fMRI machine, and I doubt you could tell me when he has decided to move, much less where. They may be able to get the first part eventually, but I suspect it would be a much more difficult task... the second I find doubtful (at least in my lifetime).
...and more difficult still... a novice at Go. (or chess, or any other complex game that involves actual decision making).
Now, if you want really impressive neurological research, there are fMRI studies into lying that are really interesting. Results so far suggest that not only will it be possible to detect the attempt to dissemble, but major clues on what is being hidden and why.
The most important, practical definition of free will is the legal one... and that will have to change soon.
That's fascinating. The neurological study sounds like It's able to make a more introspective claim about the subject than he/she may be consciously aware of.
"...a more introspective claim about the subject than he/she may be consciously aware of."
To a certain extent, yes. The processes that lead to consciousness are not themselves available to the subject. The problem lies in the fact that you can't take the results of a narrow study of an isolated process and then automatically extrapolate it to a statement on the emergent behavior that you get when all the processes interact with each other.
I guess it would depend on what you consider "conscious awareness". I regard it as a subjective "feeling" that plays from causal, material, and mechanical means. We might be able to get to point C from point A without knowing completely about the complexity in between (point B). It is a mistake to disregard experiments entirely based on complexity, as there is always a level of complexity not addressed for almost every experiment.
"It is a mistake to disregard experiments entirely based on complexity, as there is always a level of complexity not addressed for almost every experiment."
I'm not discounting the experiment, just the interpretation and sensationalism that surrounds it. It really does show some interesting material, but it doesn't cover the kind of decision making that you get when you actually have to attend to the process of making the decision. The task is trivial and I suspect that the brain knows it is.
I can agree with that assessment about the sensationalism, though I think the interpretation is the more probable one given what we do know about causality. I agree this one experiment is hardly conclusive, but (IMO) it is a nice stepping stone in the path to obliviate free will dogma. :)
"and is asked to make a decision and record the time of that decision based on the second hand"
Then they are performing multiple, independent conscious actions, each of which may have their own contributing factors and levels of awareness, complete with revisions second guessing and double checking... its an unruly mess. What is REALLY happening could be any of four or five different firing cycles.
I am not arguing that there is not a series of actions that take place. I am arguing the "conscious awareness" part, especially enough "conscious awareness" that this mystical "free will" can be assumed from it. The experiment is good evidence against it, but it is only a small part of the equation as to why compatibalism is contrived nonsense.
@trick0171 I agree, for me he doesn't answer anything with this example because he avoids the real problem which is that if determinism is true the neurons firing between seeing the spear and ducking would all be controlled by deterministic processes, so the avoiding of the spear would be inevitable, and this is irrelevant of whether the agent has it in it's capabilities to avoid a spear or not.
No, Dennett is saying: "A (any) future is inevitable after such future happens". This is not the same thing as what the determinist is saying. The determinist is saying: "A very specific future that is determined WAY BEFORE it ever happens is inevitable". An important distinction in which Dennett conflates as well.
We know this because he says "and that is true whether the universe is deterministic or indeterministic". In an indeterministic universe, the future is not inevitable in the sense the determinist is talking about.
@trick0171 "Dennet confuses evitability in actions of specific things (ie, avoiding a spear makes that evitable by definition), with evitability of the future (ie. it was inevitable that the person WOULD avoid the spear)."
You missed the first twenty seconds of the video- sorry dude.
"The future is indeed inevitable when it comes to the future if determinism is true."
The future is indeed inevitable no matter what. Your statement is meaningless.
@trick0171 maybe, but the two uses of the word mean different things.the second use makes the word almost entirely redundant- who cares if the future is inevitable? that's just the same as saying "the future is gonna happen" and who doesnt know that?it's still true that it'll happen "one way or another", as those of us who know what we mean by as sentence like this is that'll it'll be one of several conceivable notions of the future (not actual versions of reality that we can somehow navigate).
@trick0171 i do buy the distinction between the two ways people think about this "problem". they seem to be seamlessly jumping from talking about moral responsibility one minute to physics and how we can't escape cause and effect and the linearity of time the next. the only way those two spheres could have any bearing on each other is if you hold a teleological view of nature and so need to escape a pre-determined purpose set out by whatever imaginary person/thing imagine put it there.
“That’s just the same as saying “the future is gonna happen” “
No, it is nothing like this. What is being said is, if the universe is deterministic, a very specific future is going to happen. For example, you choosing chocolate icecream MUST happen, based on factors that exist before you are even born.
This is entirely different than “the future is gonna happen” in which that future can be either chocolate OR vanilla icecream being chosen. It will not happen “one way or another” only “ONE WAY”.
"The only way those two spheres could have any bearing on each other is if you hold a teleological view of nature ..."
Teleos (not in the form of deliberation) is a requirement of a causally deterministic universe (as a cause cannot lead to a different effect).
Even so, it is not a requirement to hold a teleological view of nature for a bearing on responsibility. An indeterministic universe (one where acausal events are allowed in) is entirely incompatible with free will, and hence responsibility. Any events that force a choice (causal), OR that are not up to the chooser (acausal), have a bearing on responsibility.
@trick0171 "Teleos (not in the form of deliberation) is a requirement of a causally deterministic universe (as a cause cannot lead to a different effect)." Nonsense. What's mechanism all about then? There's no aim to nature, it happens because that's the only way it can happen. Aims and purposes are the result of complex systems of inert matter - systems that can weigh up options, make plans and decisions and choices to act.
@trick0171 it will happen "ONE WAY" whether determinism is true or not. the "future can be either chocolate OR vanilla icecream" all depends wat u mean by "can be"-hopping between parallel universes or simply imagining several events that might occur, not knowing which will be realized, and deciding to act in ways which will maximize the probability of the outcome you desire. you can't skip the deliberation part and still get the same ice-cream, or any ice-cream for that matter.
@trick0171 "if the universe is deterministic, a very specific future is going to happen" - as opposed to a vague future? You choosing choc ice-cream is only true if this universe is one where you happen to choose chocolate ice-cream, but you never know which if that's the case until you make the choice - in retrospect you can say "that had to happen", but... it couldn't have happened without you deliberating over it so has no bearing on moral responsibility or our freedom to choose.
"you choosing chocolate icecream MUST happen, based on factors that exist before you are even born." There's two things you can mean by "causes". Causes can be the things which simply precede effects, so in that sense you're ice-cream choice was caused by the big bang- big WOW! Or "causes" in the sense of those things without which a particular effect is not conceivable. i.e. the fact you were told they were out of a certain flavor would be more of a cause than the weather that day. you see?
"systems that can weigh up options, make plans and decisions and choices to act"
You have a misunderstanding of Telos. A final cause just requires a necessary happening. "Weighing up options, making plans and decisions and choices to act" are not a requirement of Telos, hence the reason I stated "not in the form of deliberation"
Yes, as opposed to a vague future. A future where as someone really could have chosen chocolate, and then after rewinding time and replaying it, have chosen vanilla, would be a vague future.
"but... it couldn't have happened without you deliberating over"
My deliberation had to happen as well in a deterministic universe.
@trick0171 "It would be a cause as well...not "more of a cause"" But do you at least recognize that these causes have a varying degree of importance with respect to different events? And that it's important to distinguish these degrees of importance, e.g when trying to establish the cause of someone committing a crime there it's more relevant, to begin with anyway, analyse the more immediate psychological and environmental factors than, say, to study the Battle of Hastings. (CONTINUED...)
(CONT..) One of the psychological factors is the deliberation process the criminal went through, all his life choices that were necessary steps towards committing the crime. Its as though people want to ignore that stage of the process and bypass it in their own minds to not be held morally responsible. And the only reason is that they can conceive of the idea that the world is made up of atoms and governed by deterministic laws. In the morally relevant sense we're free, determined or not.
@trick0171 "My deliberation had to happen as well in a deterministic universe" To be honest I think it could only happen in a deterministic universe, the only alternative is that it happens by magic. An indeterministic universe with any degree of randomness between events WOULD undermine our deliberating a make it pointless, because it would be left to chance. So you agree there's deliberation in a deterministic universe so what more do you want from free-will that indeterminism offers you?
@trick0171 "A future where as someone really could have chosen chocolate, and then after rewinding time and replaying it, have chosen vanilla, would be a vague future." Agreed that would be vague but it's a silly impossible idea in my opinion.
@trick0171 "You have a misunderstanding of Telos."It's not a word I'm familiar with. "Teleological" I'm more comfortable with and the key difference, unless I'm mistake, between this and "mechanistic" is that one is purpose driven, and the other is void of purpose, but BOTH use cause and effect explanations.
Why do I choose the blonde over the redhead?
Bcuz I think shes hotter!
Why do I think she is hotter?
Bcuz when I see the chicks my eyes pass on images to my visual cortex
Which passes it on to my prefrontal cortex
Which experiences more/better neural activation when it processes the blonde image
And tells my Motor Cortex to stick $5 in my mouth and slide onto the stage!
Cause and effect?
Where is free will?
I picked the blonde bcuz I was wired to.
HedgehogRebellion 1 month ago
@HedgehogRebellion Your brain may have determined which girl you prefer, but your action of sliding onto the stage was something you chose to do as a result of free will.
pawnstar3 1 month ago
@pawnstar3 OK...two guys see the same girl on stage...
One decides to jump up on stage
And the other does not
WHY? What is the difference between them?
Why did one decide to and another did not?
HedgehogRebellion 1 month ago
@HedgehogRebellion Well let's assume first that both guys find the girl to be attractive. So they have the same basic physical attraction to the girl. As far as why one might jump on stage and one might not, there can be a plethora of reasons about that. But either way, it's a decision they're making in that moment. Maybe one of them has a gf, maybe they're shy, maybe they don't think that behavior is appropriate, etc. But regardless, they're choosing to make that decision.
pawnstar3 1 month ago
@pawnstar3 Their decision is made by their brain, right? Let me stop you first...if you DONT agree that the decision is made by the brain then I suggest you visit the NeuroPsych floor of your local University and they can explain it to you...but I digress.
So the decision is made by the brain...RIGHT?
HedgehogRebellion 1 month ago
@HedgehogRebellion Of course it's made by their brain - and please calm down before you have a stroke. Although, according to you , that's already pre-determined so nothing you can do will change that anyway.
pawnstar3 1 month ago
@pawnstar3 Well how is it not? YES...I know we make choices...but so what...so do computers...we dont say they have free will.
HedgehogRebellion 1 month ago
@HedgehogRebellion Computers don't make choices - human beings make choices for computers. We created them and we control them. Maybe if someone believed in an almighty creator (God) then you could argue that God has some sort of master plan (fate) and he controls everything we do. But I don't believe in God and I believe in the power of the brain and all of its functions including critical thinking, intelligence, decision-making, etc.
pawnstar3 1 month ago
@pawnstar3
choice/CHois/Noun: An act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities.
Standard Piece of Programming Code:
If x then do this
If y then do something else
Sorry man...a computer recieves input...analyzes it...and then performs an action based on what is input, which conforms to the definition of choice given above.
Thank you, come again!
HedgehogRebellion 1 month ago
@HedgehogRebellion Does a computer have the ability to think critically? To weigh decisions and understand consequences of decisions? Does it have a moral compass? I'll keep coming again - thanks a lot
pawnstar3 1 month ago
@pawnstar3 what will we say when they bcum sophisticated enough to do all the thinks you mentioned? They have wiring...we have wiring. The real differences are that their circuits are faster bcuz silicone conducts signals faster than our neurons do, but we have more complex brains with each neuron making muktiple connections. I have a degree in NeuroSci and a diploma in Programming. I think I know what Im talking about.
HedgehogRebellion 1 month ago
@HedgehogRebellion I can tell you don't have an English degree by the amount of gross misspellings in that post. What do your degrees mean to this discussion? Having an understanding of the brain doesn't mean you have an understanding of the philosophy of free will, determinism, compatibilism, etc. Computers are man-made machines. Machines aren't humans. Do machines understand morality?
pawnstar3 1 month ago
@pawnstar3 Can you prove we have free will, instead of simply doing what is in our nature. If you can, get back. If you can't...don't. Im not interested in your metaphysical speculations...only proof.
HedgehogRebellion 1 month ago
@HedgehogRebellion Why are you dichotomizing our nature from free will - they coexist. We are our brains. The way you're presenting it is that we're slaves to our brains as if the self is a separate entity from the brain. It's the same with nature and nurture - they coexist.
pawnstar3 1 month ago
@pawnstar3 On this point we seem to have reached an accord..."We are our brains!" This is the whole essence of my stance.
Now to say that we have Free Will seems to suggest that we are somehow morally blameworthy for our behaviour. But to be morally blameworthy there must have been an option for us to chose not to do it. But if WE ARE OUR BRAIN then there was no choice...we do what we do bcuz we are who we are.
HedgehogRebellion 1 month ago
@HedgehogRebellion We are definitely in agreement that we are our brains. Where I differ from you (and all determinists) and where I would probably align myself with a more compatiblistic approach is that free will can co-exist with that dynamic. I do think we are morally blameworthy for our behavior. We can't choose what we will, but we can choose how to act on what we will.
pawnstar3 1 month ago
@pawnstar3 Now I have heard of compatibilism but I am not sure by what mechanism it bases itself on. If you could give me a brief outline I would read it over.
In my view there is only 1 of 2 options:
1: FW simply does not exist
2: FW does somehow exist BUT...as we can never 100% predict the consequences of our actions we are still not really "in control" of our lives...do you follow me?
I peeked at your channel and you seem to be bright but I would like a more clear rationale of FW
HedgehogRebellion 1 month ago
@HedgehogRebellion Well I think "in control" is a very subjective phrase. I don't view free will as being in control of things per se. You're only in control of the decisions you're making. I think part of the problem with the free will debate is that the term free will almost needs to be more clearly defined first so that everyone is on the same page. A lot of things are out of our control (external forces, accidents, luck, butterfly effect, etc) but I do think our consciousness and ......
pawnstar3 1 month ago
@HedgehogRebellion cont'd .... ability to think critically, understand right and wrong (morality) etc demonstrates that we have the free will to do those things. Again, I think a big key is what one means when they say free will. The compatiblist position defines free will differently more so as someone being free to act. The will is fixed, but the acting on the wall is what makes the person free. I have a feeling that you disagree with that definition though?
pawnstar3 1 month ago
@pawnstar3 Before I try to get too technical, let me give a bit of background.
For part of my undergrad I did a parer on the neurophysiological differences b/t the average person and a psychopath. These people have shown on EEG that when it comes to making moral decisions the areas of the brian responsible for moral behaviour do not light up (prefrontal cortex).
That was the first time I was exposed to the idea that our character and all it entails...the ability to make moral judgements...
HedgehogRebellion 1 month ago
@pawnstar3 Cont'd...is limited by our biological makeup. Even as far back as Roman days the physician Galen noted that soldiers who suffered blows o th head would display different personality traits after the battle.
So given the evidence that our moral character is based on our neural wiring...I cannot see any definition of FW that would entail a sense that we can pick and chose our moral stance. We can learn new moral ideas...but even these lessons are stored in abrain already DNA defined
HedgehogRebellion 1 month ago
@HedgehogRebellion I agree with most of what you're saying. But let me bring up some statements to see how you feel about these :
1. We are our brains - I think you agree with that one
2. Our brains have the ability to make choices (could be part nature, part experience, etc )
3. Since our brains can make choices and we are our brains, then we as human beings have free will to make those choices.
I don't see a separation between the brain and the self.
pawnstar3 1 month ago
@pawnstar3
Point1: Yes we are in accord.
Point 2: Here's the kicker...IT'S BOTH! What we are is the result of how our experiences have acted since our birth on the brain we were born with.
Say you have an equation...x + 1 =y...and you decide you will plug 1 into the x factor. The result will be 2 WHy? Because the result was dictated by two things...the input (1) and the effect that going through the equation HAD an 1 (to add 1 to it).
SWO it is always BOTH...and nothing else, follow....
HedgehogRebellion 1 month ago
@pawnstar3 Continued.
Point 3: The equation left the result no choice. We could not plug 1 into the equation and get a different result...no matter how many times we try.
POINT 3: So as our brains have a starting condition at birth, defined by our DNA. Like the equation, life experience operates to modify the staring factor. BUT THAT IS IT...like the equation...if a PERFECT copy of YOU was confronted with a decision...it would make the exact same decision? So in what SENSE is it 'free'? See?
HedgehogRebellion 1 month ago
@HedgehogRebellion But here's the thing - the difference between animals and humans in intellect. As humans, we are conscious and aware of our existence, are able to process information, make choices, etc. When we make a choice, yes I agree that multiple things can influence that decision. The philosopher Schopenhauer had a great line - he said we are free to do what we will but not will what we will. That to me sums it up. CONT'd....
pawnstar3 1 month ago
@HedgehogRebellion I think equations don't do the human brain justice. Regardless of what is contributing to the brain making the ultimate decision, the fact that the brain (or simply us) can make that decision and comprehend the implications or moral consequences, etc. proves that we have free will. I think our definitions of free will are slightly different. I think determinism and free will go hand in hand basically.
pawnstar3 1 month ago
@pawnstar3 lets examine the brain and an equation. Both are systems that accept input...process it...and produce a result. Now, if someone is not willing to accept that both are deterministic systems than I can go no further. I think I would find it more satisfying if you said WHY you dont think equations do the brain justice...I cannot answer a statement that does not provide a basis for its validity.
If it is deterministic, then it simply does what is in its nature and has no real choice.
HedgehogRebellion 1 month ago
@HedgehogRebellion But the brain doesn't simply accept and process - it also analyzes and is cognizant of its own existence and abilities. Again, the human brain is much more complex than a simple equation. The problem with the whole free will debate is what difference does it make ultimately?It's not like changing your mind about which theory you support will change your decisions. By the way, do you believe in God? I'm curious to see how that plays into your analysis.
pawnstar3 1 month ago
@pawnstar3 Lets look at the terms you are using to describe two functions...process and analyze...but analyzing information is how the brain processes the information that goes thru it.
Also, to be cognizant is once again just the brain processing information, in this case awareness of its own characteristics. But when a computer does a self-diagnostic is it not just doing a similar thing with a less complex system?
-->
HedgehogRebellion 1 month ago
@HedgehogRebellion Well I think consciousness and intelligence is what gives people the ability to make choices of their own will. I think in many ways we actually agree, but it's more on the point of how we classify the brain as its own entity. Let me try this very simple equation. A is the brain and B is the person. If we agree that a person is essentially their brain, then we can safely say that A= B. If we say that the brain has the ability to make choices, ....
pawnstar3 1 month ago
@HedgehogRebellion part 2....then the person since they are their brain has the ability to make choices. See I agree with you that part of what's effecting the choice is experience, brain chemistry, etc. But since we're our brains anyway, that is essentially us making that choice. There is no distinction between a person and their brain. The danger of what you're saying is that moral responsilbity can be evaded.
pawnstar3 1 month ago
@pawnstar3 Yes, I efinitely believe in God, but not thru logic...at the risk of sounding immmodest my belief stems from personal experience. Of course, that leaves me in no position to argue logically that God exists. I cannot provide any evidence of my experience and I would not blame anyone for being skeptical, nor could I argue with them.
/thusly I have nothing i could say that would work God into my theory.
HedgehogRebellion 1 month ago
@HedgehogRebellion The reason I brought up God is that God is said to have given people free will - that's what the whole Adam and Eve parable alludes to in fact.
pawnstar3 1 month ago
@pawnstar3 At this point Im going to ask you to swing by my channel and check out my video. The reason I put it up was so that I could try and deliever the bulk of my argument in one clean stroke. If you do...great...if you dont...OK...I hope you do.
HedgehogRebellion 1 month ago
@HedgehogRebellion I did watch the video. There are some points I definitely agree with but I still disagree with the notion that we don't have free will. Again, we are our brains. It seems like you're explaining the functions of the brain but to me that can go hand in hand with free will - instead of negating it. Why do people agonize over certain decisions or have regrets? Why try to convince me that free will doesn't exist if I can't choose to change my mind about it?
pawnstar3 1 month ago
@pawnstar3 OK...we agonize over a decision because two options may both be attractive and we have have to:
1: Scrutinize the differences that make each option different by comparing them on a point-by-point basis
2: Imagine what the outcome will be of each option...because one option may be preferable in one context and viceversa
3: Access our own stored preferences to do comparissons with the options to see if the match our own values
See above
HedgehogRebellion 1 month ago
@pawnstar3
The kicker! What is our personality if not an sum totaling of our values? Here's where we get back into the whole PersonalityBrainDNALuck chain of reasoning.
We can change. Right now you are reading my words and your brain is processing the information which may cause you to change your mind. But whether it changes or not is determined by what you already believe, which is the result of how your life experinces up till this very second have acted on the brain you were born with!
HedgehogRebellion 1 month ago
@HedgehogRebellion Again, I think that free will and determinism actually co-exist. I think the problem lies in how we define these things essentially. I actually saw a decent video today on here which talks a bit about this discussion. If you're interested, search "energy matter and information" by a user called professoranton - let me know what you think if you do watch it - it has some decent points especially towards the end.
pawnstar3 1 month ago
@pawnstar3 I got halfway thru, and i just asked him if he would hit my videoup and ask if he would check it out, he was hitting up so many points in such rapid succesion that i could not identify a consistent theme relative to my argument.
HedgehogRebellion 1 month ago
@HedgehogRebellion Yeah his video was a bit all over the place but it was basically stating something similar to what I was saying in terms of compatibilism. My suggestion to you would be to look up compatibilism on the web (even wikipedia has a good page on it) and see if you can agree with the basic aspects of it. To me, compatiblism is the most sensible answer to the question of free will and determinism since it has ways of incorporating both sensibly.
pawnstar3 1 month ago
@pawnstar3 It seems to me that one of the reasons people believe in FW is becasue they LIKE TO FEEL in control of their lives. That seems to be the promise that FW offers. I am not saying that is the SOLE grounds for a belief in FW, but for reasons I have just outlined I do not believe that is a promise FW can make.
Insane beliefs-->Insane thoughts
Insane thoughts-->Insane actions
Insane actions-->Insane world
That is why I take this issue so seriously.
HedgehogRebellion 1 month ago
He's essentially an incompatibilist, I mean an agent's aversion is contingent on it's indeterminism, as if it's determined to avoid a particular occurrence then free will is annihilated. Determinism is the doctrine that all occurrences are determined by causality, he's insinuating agents are in some sense separate from universal deterministic laws. It's really a libertarianist approach...
gavin101101 3 months ago
I think freedom of mind and determinism don't contradict each other. Don't forget that freedom of mind is viewed from a personal level with you as an active entity. However, we are also the result of our environment and we pass a point in time only once. So maybe we are destined to act like we act, however we don't know that! Take a novel or a movie, where each character has thought processes and drives while the progression is predefined, one is viewed from the inside and one from the outside.
mellowcowism 8 months ago
Dennett doesn't make a case against determinism. That's not his position. He's a compatibilist, i.e., he thinks (and in his book "Freedom Evolves" he argues) that determinism is compatible with free will.
alexandrempinto 9 months ago in playlist Daniel Dennett (2011).
absolutely agree.
once hominids became top dogs on the planet, we operated under different evolutionary principles. we were not bound to a 'niche' any more, and were free to develop moralities and principles, looking ahead in time, not having things dictated by predators/prey.
this is why i think we are a 'super species', because we are of different blood types, o,a,b,ab, none of which had to die out, re-mixing with divergent species like neanderthals.
we're not homogenous like other species.
natmanprime 1 year ago
1) Every particle in the universe might well be obeying rigid laws with only one possible outcome from one instant to the next
2) Someone who takes a decision can have sufficient knowledge and competence to be held accountable for that decision
How can these both be true?
It's the same question as ''how can I be alive when my atoms aren't?''. Things have meaning at some levels whilst being meaningless at other levels. Sometimes an apparent paradox is just a change of perspective.
GregFox100 1 year ago
I don't see how Dennett makes a case against determanism?
avoidance may be a property, but in a deterministic universe it is only a probability. the agent/avoider has the evolutionary capacity to avoid the spear and therefore he MUST avoid the spear! except he also has the evolutionary capacity to "choose" not to do so. but in that case it was also predetermined because he has exactly that mindset through cause and effect of the universe. or am I missing something here?
TheNinerion 1 year ago 5
@TheNinerion You're absolutely right. This video is definitely not an argument against determinism. It's an argument in favour of determinism being completely compatible with moral responsibility and free will. The point is that even if no other decision was ever going to be made, a person's detailed rationale for making it is sufficient to assess their culpability. Indeterminate futures of particles wouldn't increase free will, it'd reduce it because spear-dodging (etc) would be harder.
GregFox100 1 year ago
To me it felt like clever word play to temporarily tie the brain in a knot, allbeit a loose one. If determinism is true then the evitability of any given situation would be inevitable and the inevitability of any given situation would also be inevitable. Simply put: both evitable events and inevitable events are inevitable in a deterministic world.
fizzyfox 1 year ago 3
@fizzyfox No, it was clever word play, but not to tie your brain in a knot. He's saying that the concept of Determinism is itself a knot that we should rid our brains of. Because we know certain things are avoidable -- we have the agency to avoid the spear -- the attempt to apply Determinism at some higher, vaguer level is illegitimate.
MEpianist 9 months ago
So don't use the word inevitable... it was used incorrectly. but that's beside the point, it doesn't mean determinism isn't true! Your 'avoidance' fit into the definition of determinism because any choice you make no matter how many changes you make or how random your choosing is, it was always going to happen given the environment was the the same. BEING A SPEAR AVOID-ER IS PART OF GENETICS/INSTINCT AND THEREFORE PREDICTABLE (if someone could read the sign of the universe perfectly)
nbm953 1 year ago
dawkins says the middle world,refering to atomic physics,is one humans cannot understand...so dawkins doesn't understand the building blocks of the universe,but he can tell us there's no god....
tkshots 2 years ago
@tkshots, if the physical world is not fully comprihensible, how can you possibly claim to know the existence of the supernatural?
fede2 1 year ago
i'm saying it's not possible to know,one way or the other...he shouldn't be so sure of himself... when he says he,and humans in general,cannot understand how the world is put together,how can he then think there is no higher intelligence? because there is no evidence? nature is smarter than we are...and so perfectly put together,how can he put that down to chance?? ridiculous...he's one of the smart stupid people....
tkshots 1 year ago
i'm not in full awareness of dawkins's view on this matter, i can only speak for myself.
even if the observable world, or the world we have access to cannot be fully comprehended (which may or may not be true), trying to explain it by means of a hypothetical realm of the supernatural constitutes a fallacy from ignorance.
"nature is smarter than we are"
i really don't know what you mean by this. i imagine you don't mean it literally since nature is not a conscious entity.
fede2 1 year ago
einsteins law has a flaw,it breaks down in black holes-nature is smarter than we are-the big bang theory is a theory,nothing more-there is no unified theory of everything-gravity and quantum physics don't mix-scientists say how complicated and beautiful the world is...any reasonable person would have to believe something/someone created that...all the evidence suggests it is an intelligence, higher intelligence than humans-i'm no religious freak,i think it's sensible to have that opinion....
tkshots 1 year ago
i guess that makes me unreasonable then.
the fact that our physical surroundings- which do not constitue the entire universe- have a particular balance that favors our existence does not give enough reason to believe the universe is teleologically conditioned.
fede2 1 year ago
you don't know,but you know....
tkshots 1 year ago
pardon?
fede2 1 year ago
@tkshots
Just because we can't explain certain aspects of the universe does not mean you can put it down to intelligence. And if the universe was somehow designed, humans would certainly be a bi-product of such a universe, a coincidence, not designed by the creator. Yes the universe is bizarrely incomprehensible. 2000 years ago the sun rising and setting was such. Back then this meant that God did it. If, now, something is bizarrely incomprehensible to humans, you cannot invoke that God did it.
Sirstingray 1 year ago
@Sirstingray humans will never understand the universe...from how it started to gravity to black holes to infinity to atoms...richard dawkins has no idea whether or not there is a god...and being arrogant about it doesn't change that...he was very arrogant about james lovelocks' gaia,he was wrong....
tkshots 1 year ago
@tkshots
Dawkins, I'm sure, would agree that humans will never fully understand the universe. He will also agree that he can't possibly know if there is a God or not. All we can do is look at the evidence for there being a theistic God (there's remarkably little by the way) and judge based on these conclusions. No-one can ever know, therefore all we can do is make the best guess. Dawkins is not in my opinion arrogant about this, only explicit and clear. He might be in yours.
Sirstingray 1 year ago
@tkshots He doesn't tell us there's no god, he says he doesn't believe in god because of insufficient evidence whereas other people believe in god without needing a shred of evidence, i.e faith. Whether or not there is a god is unknown as you can't prove or disprove it, so it's whether you use common sense or blind faith as your means to make up your mind. I, like Dawkins, choose to use common sense and he's merely trying to urge the rest of the world to follow suit.
fizzyfox 1 year ago
Great words at the end!
ricardas83 2 years ago
It would seem that man has been hit by many bricks that were told, well in advance, were on there way but they still hit home with that sickening thud of inevitability and promise.
Because man, ignored the shouts of here it comes or seen them as the uttering of an old fool.
Keep your head up. ear's pricked and eyes open and we may catch some of these flying bricks.
So therefore avoiding the crushing impact meted out by the said brick and avoid been ridiculed as a fool for not listening.
sapian59 3 years ago
Dennet confuses evitability in actions of specific things (ie, avoiding a spear makes that evitable by definition), with evitability of the future (ie. it was inevitable that the person WOULD avoid the spear). The future is indeed inevitable when it comes to the future if determinism is true.
trick0171 3 years ago 14
what a stupid comment
wittgensteinsghost 3 years ago
Ad-hominems are no argument at all.
Evitable by definition means "capable of being avoided or warded off". If it is capable to avoid a spear it is evitable. That does not mean the actual avoidance of the spear could have happened any other way. Posing the word "evitable" to the future is DIFFERENT than posing the word "evitable" to the spear. Saying a comment is "stupid" is NOT an argument.
trick0171 3 years ago 7
Sorry you are averse the truth of your own intellectual inadequacy.
wittgensteinsghost 3 years ago
Your inadequacy isn't capable of being avoided or warded off". It is inevitable.
wittgensteinsghost 3 years ago
Cough...ad-hominem. Sorry I commented. You obviously do not understand the content of the videos that you post very well, so when someone makes a comment against it you can only revert to logical fallacies to defend it and give them thumbs down.
trick0171 3 years ago 7
And you are obviously oblivious to the any possibility of understanding of philosophy.
wittgensteinsghost 3 years ago
Have you even studied Dennett's adaptationist views, in line with the thinking of ethologist Richard Dawkin? Obviously NOT, or you wouldn't be embarrassing yourself with this absurd statements....You are obviously a crude determinist. What a joke your arguments are.
wittgensteinsghost 3 years ago
"And you are obviously oblivious to the any possibility of understanding of philosophy."
And I would argue that my "obliviousness" is only "obvious" to someone that is already oblivious to understanding philosophy. Especially when they can not use a real argument to debate my logic and have to revert to ad-hominem attacked and questioning a persons education on the subject unwarrantedly.
trick0171 3 years ago 8
And yes, I own and have read Dennett's book "Freedom Evolves" if you must know. I have also read three books that Dawkin's has written. What I am saying is, that Dennett makes some incorrect leaps in his logic to show compatabilism with free will and determinism.
trick0171 3 years ago 6
Here is Dennett's (poor) logic:
1)In some deterministic worlds there are avoiders avoiding harms.
2)Therefore, in some deterministic worlds some things are avoided.
3)Whatever is avoided is avoidable, or evitable.
4)Therefore, in some deterministic worlds not everything is inevitable.
5)Therefore, determinism does not imply inevitability.
trick0171 3 years ago 6
You aren't just a simple determinist, trick0171. You're a sloppy inflexible hard determinist...So you own a book of Dennetts. So you don't a superficial reading of it. In spite of the fact that your lips undoubtedly moved while you were reading, you did understand ANYTHING you read. Dennett's point is that determinism consists of the rules of the game of life. That doesn't mean that the rules fix every aspect of life. Saying it does is ridiculous. You're saying what happens happens. Determinism?
wittgensteinsghost 3 years ago
Not really. Your position is closer to fundamentalist Christianity. You, trick0171, are a fatalist, not a determinist.
wittgensteinsghost 3 years ago
Notice that I use the word FREEDOM not FREE WILL. Since fatalism, as a response to the non-existence of free will, is a deeply mistaken response, one that confuses determinism for powerlessness, we neednt pretend to have free will just to avoid it. The traditional notion of the freely willing agent does nothing to give us real, causal powers the powers of desire, rationality, and skill that we dont already have in some measure. Actions do make a difference, in that they have effects
wittgensteinsghost 3 years ago
You silly summary discounts agency. You make the absurd point that tautologically whatever happens is determined to happen in a deterministic system. That argument is sophomoric and pointless.
wittgensteinsghost 3 years ago
You are simplistic fatalist. Pure and simple. Fatalism is the view that we are powerless to do anything other than what we actually do. It may be argued for in various ways: by appeal to logical laws and metaphysical necessities; by appeal to the existence and nature of God; by appeal to causal determinism. You base your fatalism on causal determinism.
wittgensteinsghost 3 years ago
Arrgh...debating you is like debating a creationist. You use words like "sloppy and inflexible" but do not back it up with proper logic. If you actually READ Dennett's work, it is about having FREE WILL....not just "FREEDOM". If you look at the logic I displayed, that is EXACTLY Dennetts argument. You use the word "fatalism" as if it is some sort of "bad word", for no reason. You clain something as "sophmoric and pointless" without backing it up with any logic what so ever.
trick0171 3 years ago 5
Let me show you why the "agency" argument makes no sense (since it is not obvious to you for some reason). I will use Mickey Mouse:
1)In some deterministic cartoons there are mouses avoiding walls.
2)Therefore, in some deterministic cartoons some things are avoided.
3)Whatever is avoided is avoidable, or evitable.
4)Therefore, in some deterministic cartoons not everything is inevitable.
5)Therefore, determinism does not imply inevitability.
(more...)
trick0171 3 years ago 5
While the cartoon wall was, in principle, avoidable, it was inevitable that the deterministic Mickey Mouse would walk into it.
Line 3 is where Dennett's argument falls apart.
Try debating the actual logic, instead of purely ad-hominem attacks and calling my logic "sophmoric". If it is so "sophmoric" you should be able to use LOGIC to show the flaws in it. The problem is you cannot, because Dennett's argument is seriously flawed.
Peace,
Trick
trick0171 3 years ago 6
It is perfectly legitimate to make a value judgment about the intellectual rigor of an argument with words like "sophomoric" (I took the liberty of correcting you misspelling of the word). Your argument is completely absurd. In fact, it differs almost not at all from good old Calvinist predestination, except you don't have any overt reasons for your fatalistic conclusions. For you, what happens is what happens. Dennett says yes the future is the what happens in the future. That's certainly
wittgensteinsghost 3 years ago
(this comment it the conclusion of my previous comment)
trivially true. But the argument doesn't end there. And it doesn't end there because of AGENCY and ADAPTIVE STRATEGIES.
I use freedom in spite of Dennett's use of free will because his use of that word burdens his argument with the unnecessary baggage of too often becoming embroiled in the tired old debate of free will and its implications.
Too bad your insufferable arrogance isn't matched by your ability to frame logical arguments.
wittgensteinsghost 3 years ago
First off...you make the assumption that I am a fatalist. Second, you do not seem to understand what fatalism means. Third I understand the importance of causality, fixing problems at or close to causal base, importance of memes, etc., so if you think a fatalist doesn't then I am not one per your definition...OR you are defining it incorrectly (I am not a defeatist...which is different).
(more...)
trick0171 3 years ago 3
Fourth, Dennett contrives a "free will" from agents incorrectly, and his conclusion is false. My entire argument is on free will...the type that Dennett contrives. The clip you have displayed is the crux of Dennetts argument, so if you mean something else by it you probably need a different video. Fifth, I also am agnostic regarding if indeterministic elements exist in QM (though I weigh more on not). (More...)
trick0171 3 years ago 3
And last, you claim that I am arrogant purely on me making an argument? You "correct my spelling" as a way to say "look you don't know how to spell a word, so you must not know what you are talking about". I am not the arrogant pone.
trick0171 3 years ago 3
wittgensteinsghost,
I came on here to make a comment about the video or possibly debate about it in a friendly fashion. I do not enjoy getting "snippy" back at you, so I do apologize if my comments seem or are rude, as that was not my initial intention. I just do not like being character attacked as if you know something about me based on a few comments. Anyway, Im sorry if I seemed rude, because as I look back at my comments it appears I have.
Thanks.
trick0171 3 years ago 3
I'm giving up...You are tilting at arguments which neither I nor Dennett makes. Your final point about being 'agnostic regarding if indeterministic elements exist' undercuts every point of your previous 'logical' argument.
I have nothing more to say to you.
wittgensteinsghost 3 years ago
"Your final point about being 'agnostic regarding if indeterministic elements exist' undercuts every point of your previous 'logical' argument."
No it doesn't. It is not MY logical argument, but Dennett's argument in which I am showing why his argument is flawed (logically). We haven't even talked about MY arguments regarding why freewill cannot exist in either a deterministic (causal) or indeterministic (random) universe.
Anyway, I think we should agree to disagree.
Take care. :)
trick0171 3 years ago 2
@trick0171 ya, how could freewill behave any differently than our biological agents which are deterministic?
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA
The better question is how can free will exist (at all) in biological agents that are deterministic? By contriving a definition of free will that is not free, not willed, or neither free nor willed. Sort of like redefining the moon as the sun and telling people you have moonburn. ;)
trick0171 1 year ago
@trick0171 haha ya, i kind of feel and think that like, compatibalism is basically determinism redefined for the people who were to scared by how it sounded to really contemplate and accept it... LIke, exactly as you said, the biological agents are deterministic... So everything is deterministic.... I just think this compatibalism stuff is just determinism redefined for the defintion sensitive...
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 year ago
"Line 3 is where Dennett's argument falls apart."
I admit in advance that I have not read Freedom Evolves, though I have put a few of Dennett's other books through the old mill...
It has been my impression that Dennett makes a distinction between physical determinism and effective determinism. The physical processes in the brain may be determined by predisposition and environment, but those processes have reached a complexity that cannot be objectively determined before they become action.
AutodidacticPhd 3 years ago
Hi AutodidacticPhd,
Thanks for the comment.
I think this distinction is flawed. When you say "objectively determined" I think you may mean objectively predicted, which is entirely different than determined. Determinism does not mean human predictability. For example, the uncertainty principle is compatible with causality (determinism). Regardless... (MORE)
trick0171 3 years ago
If you are talking about physical processes in the brain, neuroscience is getting very close to showing this objectivity. Scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences were able to predict the outcome of a decision up to 7 seconds before a person thinks he/she is consciously making the decision.
trick0171 3 years ago
"Scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences were able to predict the outcome of a decision up to 7 seconds before a person thinks he/she is consciously making the decision."
Frankly, that is one interpretation of the experiment (if it is the same one I have read). And there are several problems with extrapolating further from it.
cont...
AutodidacticPhd 3 years ago
...For one thing, the experiment was based on a very simple physical task, with clearly outlined parameters. This contributed dramatically to the reduction of noise in the brain and factors contributing to the decision process.
Secondly, multiple parts of the test results were subjective and/or iterative.
Ultimately all the experiment shows is that our experience of the decision making process is made up of many parts.
Unless this is a different experiment. What is your source?
AutodidacticPhd 3 years ago
My source is Nature Neuroscience, feel free to look it up on Google (it's probably the same)
I agree with you on the "simple physical tasks part" (pressing a button), hence the reason I stated they are getting "close"; but I disagree with you on your "subjective" results claim.
What the results do show is, at least for simple tasks, we can know a decision before the person is aware they have made one. In other words, causality to a decision precedes conscious awareness of it.
trick0171 3 years ago
"but I disagree with you on your "subjective" results claim."
The thing is, the experiment asks a person to not only press a button, but to report the time at which they felt the conscious urge to press the button, which is where subjectivity enters the process.
There is no version of the experiment that I have seen that removes this subjective element. There is a lot of room in this element for more to be going on than the experiment assumes.
AutodidacticPhd 3 years ago
Ah I understand what you are saying. You are not claiming the scientists are being subjective, but rather the subject is (of course).
Any experiment that attempts to measure the time of conscious awareness must ask the subject when they are aware. That is the whole point, that our measurement precedes this "subjective" conscious awareness.
trick0171 3 years ago
"That is the whole point, that our measurement precedes this "subjective" conscious awareness."
Aye, but therein lies the problem. If subjective awareness is emergent of other processes, and you add in the fact that reporting the experience is also going to require processing and time... basically, until we have a better idea of what is actually going on, any objective statement you could make about which process proceeds which with regard to consciousness is going to be speculative.
AutodidacticPhd 3 years ago
I don't see it as a problem, nor do I see it as subjective from the perspective of the experiment. If the subject is watching a second hand on a clock, and is asked to make a decision and record the time of that decision based on the second hand, that is when they (subjectively) have the conscious thought of the decision. It is not speculation. (MORE)
trick0171 3 years ago
The entire point of the experiment is to show that the (subjective) awareness IS emergent of other processes that precede it, and that no real willful decision is being made due to that. I think it does this well.
trick0171 3 years ago
Comment removed
AutodidacticPhd 3 years ago
...it isn't a discrete point, but something that looks more like a quantum wave function... a rippling 3D splash of variable density that is under constant self revision. What time they choose to report is a separate decision making act in which they are trying to remember an obscure piece of data from another decision, and all of these choices are being made on scales with much less resolution than the scanners... to say you have accurate data from a set up like that is almost ludicrous.
AutodidacticPhd 3 years ago
"awareness IS emergent of other processes that precede it"
I hate this bit the most. They assume that the decision is preceding the awareness, instead of the decision making process being identical with the awareness. The only thing we've been able to show with any accuracy, anywhere, is that we are horrible judges of what is going on in our subjective mind. Our awareness at any moment is a fuzzy ball of a few seconds ago, now and the next instant all at once...
AutodidacticPhd 3 years ago
"instead of the decision making process being identical with the awareness"
If we are unaware of the decision making process, and we can know the outcome of that process 7 seconds before there is awareness of it, how can it be identical to the awareness. The point is that there is this underlying process in which we have no conscious awareness of that makes the decision for us, and our awareness of it happens afterward.
trick0171 3 years ago
"and we can know the outcome of that process 7 seconds before there is awareness of it"
First off, the predictive time frame is more like 2 seconds and their actually measuring in miliseconds. The feeling of "willing" to do something is a fantastically vague idea and the internal awareness of the activity within the conscious mind is so fuzzy, I really do not think that the subjects are capable of accurately judging the information they are required to provide.
AutodidacticPhd 3 years ago
"The point is that there is this underlying process in which we have no conscious awareness of that makes the decision for us"
But that isn't born out by the facts. One could just as easily come to the conclusion that this experiment only shows that self reflective awareness is simply not a good judge of its own activities.
If a person observes a quick series of events, the person may be able to tell you a lot of details about each event, but be unable to sequence or even distinguish them.
AutodidacticPhd 3 years ago
Where is this 7 is mor like 2 seconds coming from? I still say you are confusing what we consider "awareness", with this "fuzzy thinking" that we would not consider aware (in the sense needed to help the compatibalist stance). We are not asking the subject to detail out the process of the decision, only to note when they feel they have experiences awareness of it.
trick0171 3 years ago
-"The large number of perceptually simultaneous responses provides a further measure of the difficulty of the judgment. There are thus a very broad range of stimulus delays in which the subject is unable to make an accurate ordering response."- Stanley A. Klein
And this is just a portion of one out of a dozen critiques I've found of the subjective response problem. I'll have to hit the science library once I get on campus to read more than just the abstracts.
AutodidacticPhd 3 years ago
"Where is this 7 is mor like 2 seconds coming from?"
2000 miliseconds is the result obtained in the only video of the experiment that I have found. Some literature on the topic report as high as 10 seconds, but give no details as to procedure or data.
AutodidacticPhd 3 years ago
Here is the actual journal:
Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain. Nature Neuroscience 11, 543 - 545 (2008)
nature (dot) com/neuro/journal/v11/n5/full/nn.2112.html
trick0171 3 years ago
Ok, they know ten seconds ahead of time, using a favorable calculation on latency, that the part of your brain responsible for rehearsing actions has the plan all lined up and ready to sign... They were right 60% of the time which is between 5% and 15% better than chance and their test group was 14 individuals.
Yeah, it's neat, but it still doesn't address any of the problems of subjective reporting or what the exact interactions are. They even said as much in their brief.
AutodidacticPhd 3 years ago
Again, I am not claiming any absolutes based on the experiment, just showing an example of how neuroscience is getting very close in this regard ...with the expectation of an increase in this direction down the road. It is supportive, not conclusive.
Now logic, on the otherhand, is fairly conclusive that free will is not compatible with determinism (unless we redefine "free will" in a way that is not free or not willful (Such as Dennett attempts to do).
trick0171 3 years ago
"Now logic, on the otherhand, is fairly conclusive that free will is not compatible with determinism"
I have not problem with the lack of some kind of magical freedom from causality... the reason I hate these experiments so much is that epiphenomenalists use it to try and suggest that consciousness is little more than an accidental voyeur.
What we are dealing with in these experiments is so simple it might be what athletes call the "zone", the kinds of events where conscious awareness....
AutodidacticPhd 3 years ago
...actually steps aside so that a more streamlined system can take over. I have serious doubts about the experiment and what it is ACTUALLY testing vs what they think they are testing.
Now, put a Go master in an fMRI machine, and I doubt you could tell me when he has decided to move, much less where. They may be able to get the first part eventually, but I suspect it would be a much more difficult task... the second I find doubtful (at least in my lifetime).
AutodidacticPhd 3 years ago
...and more difficult still... a novice at Go. (or chess, or any other complex game that involves actual decision making).
Now, if you want really impressive neurological research, there are fMRI studies into lying that are really interesting. Results so far suggest that not only will it be possible to detect the attempt to dissemble, but major clues on what is being hidden and why.
The most important, practical definition of free will is the legal one... and that will have to change soon.
AutodidacticPhd 3 years ago
That's fascinating. The neurological study sounds like It's able to make a more introspective claim about the subject than he/she may be consciously aware of.
originosity 2 years ago
"...a more introspective claim about the subject than he/she may be consciously aware of."
To a certain extent, yes. The processes that lead to consciousness are not themselves available to the subject. The problem lies in the fact that you can't take the results of a narrow study of an isolated process and then automatically extrapolate it to a statement on the emergent behavior that you get when all the processes interact with each other.
AutodidacticPhd 2 years ago
If there was a way to measure all processes at all times then could you predict a subject's actions?
originosity 2 years ago
I guess it would depend on what you consider "conscious awareness". I regard it as a subjective "feeling" that plays from causal, material, and mechanical means. We might be able to get to point C from point A without knowing completely about the complexity in between (point B). It is a mistake to disregard experiments entirely based on complexity, as there is always a level of complexity not addressed for almost every experiment.
trick0171 3 years ago
"It is a mistake to disregard experiments entirely based on complexity, as there is always a level of complexity not addressed for almost every experiment."
I'm not discounting the experiment, just the interpretation and sensationalism that surrounds it. It really does show some interesting material, but it doesn't cover the kind of decision making that you get when you actually have to attend to the process of making the decision. The task is trivial and I suspect that the brain knows it is.
AutodidacticPhd 3 years ago
I can agree with that assessment about the sensationalism, though I think the interpretation is the more probable one given what we do know about causality. I agree this one experiment is hardly conclusive, but (IMO) it is a nice stepping stone in the path to obliviate free will dogma. :)
trick0171 3 years ago
"and is asked to make a decision and record the time of that decision based on the second hand"
Then they are performing multiple, independent conscious actions, each of which may have their own contributing factors and levels of awareness, complete with revisions second guessing and double checking... its an unruly mess. What is REALLY happening could be any of four or five different firing cycles.
AutodidacticPhd 3 years ago
I am not arguing that there is not a series of actions that take place. I am arguing the "conscious awareness" part, especially enough "conscious awareness" that this mystical "free will" can be assumed from it. The experiment is good evidence against it, but it is only a small part of the equation as to why compatibalism is contrived nonsense.
trick0171 3 years ago
"I think you may mean objectively predicted, which is entirely different than determined."
Yes, that is what I meant, I was just slipping between two different uses of the word...
In the dictionary, to conclude or ascertain, as after reasoning, observation, etc.
...so it was a viable use of the word, it was just sloppy to use more than one meaning of the same word in such a short statement.
AutodidacticPhd 3 years ago
Agreed, and it becomes more confusion when the discussion revolves around scientific determinism which has to do with causality. :)
trick0171 3 years ago
@trick0171 I agree, for me he doesn't answer anything with this example because he avoids the real problem which is that if determinism is true the neurons firing between seeing the spear and ducking would all be controlled by deterministic processes, so the avoiding of the spear would be inevitable, and this is irrelevant of whether the agent has it in it's capabilities to avoid a spear or not.
fullfrontalfrank 1 year ago 3
@fullfrontalfrank
Thanks for the comment. Glad someone gets it. :)
trick0171 1 year ago
@fullfrontalfrank He avoids the problem lol!
blamtasticful 4 months ago
@trick0171 The future is inevitable unless you destroy the universe, regardless of how it's going to get here.
Sorry but you're mistaken, he made the distinction quite well in the first minute of the video.
BenjaminTLaing 1 year ago
@BenjaminTLaing
No, Dennett is saying: "A (any) future is inevitable after such future happens". This is not the same thing as what the determinist is saying. The determinist is saying: "A very specific future that is determined WAY BEFORE it ever happens is inevitable". An important distinction in which Dennett conflates as well.
trick0171 1 year ago
We know this because he says "and that is true whether the universe is deterministic or indeterministic". In an indeterministic universe, the future is not inevitable in the sense the determinist is talking about.
trick0171 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@trick0171 "Dennet confuses evitability in actions of specific things (ie, avoiding a spear makes that evitable by definition), with evitability of the future (ie. it was inevitable that the person WOULD avoid the spear)."
You missed the first twenty seconds of the video- sorry dude.
"The future is indeed inevitable when it comes to the future if determinism is true."
The future is indeed inevitable no matter what. Your statement is meaningless.
BenjaminTLaing 1 year ago
@trick0171 maybe, but the two uses of the word mean different things.the second use makes the word almost entirely redundant- who cares if the future is inevitable? that's just the same as saying "the future is gonna happen" and who doesnt know that?it's still true that it'll happen "one way or another", as those of us who know what we mean by as sentence like this is that'll it'll be one of several conceivable notions of the future (not actual versions of reality that we can somehow navigate).
ElSameo 1 year ago
@trick0171 i do buy the distinction between the two ways people think about this "problem". they seem to be seamlessly jumping from talking about moral responsibility one minute to physics and how we can't escape cause and effect and the linearity of time the next. the only way those two spheres could have any bearing on each other is if you hold a teleological view of nature and so need to escape a pre-determined purpose set out by whatever imaginary person/thing imagine put it there.
ElSameo 1 year ago
@ElSameo
“That’s just the same as saying “the future is gonna happen” “
No, it is nothing like this. What is being said is, if the universe is deterministic, a very specific future is going to happen. For example, you choosing chocolate icecream MUST happen, based on factors that exist before you are even born.
(MORE 1)
trick0171 1 year ago
This is entirely different than “the future is gonna happen” in which that future can be either chocolate OR vanilla icecream being chosen. It will not happen “one way or another” only “ONE WAY”.
"The only way those two spheres could have any bearing on each other is if you hold a teleological view of nature ..."
Teleos (not in the form of deliberation) is a requirement of a causally deterministic universe (as a cause cannot lead to a different effect).
(MORE 2)
trick0171 1 year ago
Even so, it is not a requirement to hold a teleological view of nature for a bearing on responsibility. An indeterministic universe (one where acausal events are allowed in) is entirely incompatible with free will, and hence responsibility. Any events that force a choice (causal), OR that are not up to the chooser (acausal), have a bearing on responsibility.
(END 3)
trick0171 1 year ago
@trick0171 I really fancy some ice-cream now! I wonder what the cause of that was.. probably the socks I put on this morning.
ElSameo 1 year ago
@trick0171 "Teleos (not in the form of deliberation) is a requirement of a causally deterministic universe (as a cause cannot lead to a different effect)." Nonsense. What's mechanism all about then? There's no aim to nature, it happens because that's the only way it can happen. Aims and purposes are the result of complex systems of inert matter - systems that can weigh up options, make plans and decisions and choices to act.
ElSameo 1 year ago
@trick0171 it will happen "ONE WAY" whether determinism is true or not. the "future can be either chocolate OR vanilla icecream" all depends wat u mean by "can be"-hopping between parallel universes or simply imagining several events that might occur, not knowing which will be realized, and deciding to act in ways which will maximize the probability of the outcome you desire. you can't skip the deliberation part and still get the same ice-cream, or any ice-cream for that matter.
ElSameo 1 year ago
@trick0171 "if the universe is deterministic, a very specific future is going to happen" - as opposed to a vague future? You choosing choc ice-cream is only true if this universe is one where you happen to choose chocolate ice-cream, but you never know which if that's the case until you make the choice - in retrospect you can say "that had to happen", but... it couldn't have happened without you deliberating over it so has no bearing on moral responsibility or our freedom to choose.
ElSameo 1 year ago
"you choosing chocolate icecream MUST happen, based on factors that exist before you are even born." There's two things you can mean by "causes". Causes can be the things which simply precede effects, so in that sense you're ice-cream choice was caused by the big bang- big WOW! Or "causes" in the sense of those things without which a particular effect is not conceivable. i.e. the fact you were told they were out of a certain flavor would be more of a cause than the weather that day. you see?
ElSameo 1 year ago
@ElSameo
"systems that can weigh up options, make plans and decisions and choices to act"
You have a misunderstanding of Telos. A final cause just requires a necessary happening. "Weighing up options, making plans and decisions and choices to act" are not a requirement of Telos, hence the reason I stated "not in the form of deliberation"
(MORE 1)
trick0171 1 year ago
"as opposed to a vague future"
Yes, as opposed to a vague future. A future where as someone really could have chosen chocolate, and then after rewinding time and replaying it, have chosen vanilla, would be a vague future.
"but... it couldn't have happened without you deliberating over"
My deliberation had to happen as well in a deterministic universe.
(MORE 2)
trick0171 1 year ago
"so has no bearing on moral responsibility or our freedom to choose."
This is a non-sequitur.
"can be the things which simply precede effects"
Causes do not simply precede effects, the output them.
(MORE 3)
trick0171 1 year ago
"you're ice-cream choice was caused by the big bang"
Indeed, in a deterministic universe, it was.
"would be more of a cause than the weather that day"
It would be a cause as well...not "more of a cause"
(MORE 4)
trick0171 1 year ago
I want icecream now too. :)
(END 5)
trick0171 1 year ago
@trick0171 "It would be a cause as well...not "more of a cause"" But do you at least recognize that these causes have a varying degree of importance with respect to different events? And that it's important to distinguish these degrees of importance, e.g when trying to establish the cause of someone committing a crime there it's more relevant, to begin with anyway, analyse the more immediate psychological and environmental factors than, say, to study the Battle of Hastings. (CONTINUED...)
ElSameo 1 year ago
(CONT..) One of the psychological factors is the deliberation process the criminal went through, all his life choices that were necessary steps towards committing the crime. Its as though people want to ignore that stage of the process and bypass it in their own minds to not be held morally responsible. And the only reason is that they can conceive of the idea that the world is made up of atoms and governed by deterministic laws. In the morally relevant sense we're free, determined or not.
ElSameo 1 year ago
@trick0171 "My deliberation had to happen as well in a deterministic universe" To be honest I think it could only happen in a deterministic universe, the only alternative is that it happens by magic. An indeterministic universe with any degree of randomness between events WOULD undermine our deliberating a make it pointless, because it would be left to chance. So you agree there's deliberation in a deterministic universe so what more do you want from free-will that indeterminism offers you?
ElSameo 1 year ago
@trick0171 "A future where as someone really could have chosen chocolate, and then after rewinding time and replaying it, have chosen vanilla, would be a vague future." Agreed that would be vague but it's a silly impossible idea in my opinion.
ElSameo 1 year ago
@trick0171 "You have a misunderstanding of Telos."It's not a word I'm familiar with. "Teleological" I'm more comfortable with and the key difference, unless I'm mistake, between this and "mechanistic" is that one is purpose driven, and the other is void of purpose, but BOTH use cause and effect explanations.
ElSameo 1 year ago