Atheists and determinism

[Happy Wonderer]

But all you have done is remove the 'uncaused' set of events. That means that you believe that all events are caused. That does not solve the problem.

I prefer to use the terms 'caused cause' or 'uncaused cause'. You have removed 'uncaused cause' as possible, which removes free will by default as if everything is a caused cause then the universe is deterministic.

No, I have not removed 'uncaused' as a possibility in the world, I have contradicted your definition of it. Breaking a false dichotomy (I hate spelling that word) doesn't mean that one of the premises wins by default!

IOW, if "uncaused" does not equal "random", then "caused" probably doesn't equal "not random." I don't think the term "uncaused cause" helps matters much.

As to my (positive) position: I do not think that we know how deterministic physical systems are, let alone mental ones. It may not be true that you can even compute the probability curve of all possible event transitions from a state -- even given perfect knowlege of the state(which may not be even possible in theory.) In other words, I don't think that there is any good evidence to say that if we knew the complete physical state of a brain at time 'A' we would be able to determine its state at time 'B' for all instances. (Obviously if the brain is dead at A it is likely to still be dead at B.)

Thus, we have no basis to make positive statements about free will and determinism.

hw

 

[David Gould]

The dichotomy is not between randomness and nonrandomness.

In fact, the dichotomy is not the point at all.

If, as you seem to believe, all events (as you do not like me using the word cause here) are caused then it what sense can they be considered free?

That is the problem. If something is caused it is not free. Thus, free will cannot exist.

 

[Mike Flynn]

I think that this is a false dichotomy; among other things the definition of 'uncaused' is faulty.

Random simply means that two or more events have an apportioned probability of occurring from a base state. It does not mean that the resulting event is uncaused, at best you could say it is unpredictable. For example, a perfect random number generator in the range 0-9 has an equal probability of generating a 3 as it does a 7. It makes no sense to say that the resulting '3' is uncaused, it is caused by the random number algorithm; be it a simple time/hash function or a result based upon atomic decay.

I don't agree. By 'caused' I mean some event that can be precisely determined by input conditions. 'Uncaused' is an event that has absolutely no relation whatsoever to the input conditions. The result is not merely 'percieved' as random...the event is completely indeterminate and unpredicatble. In this sense, 'uncaused' describes it perfectly well.

I think your analysis of this is faulty, here's why:

While your definition of random is acceptable, your example is not really relevant. A computer algorithm uses a particular set of mathematical sequences to determine a random value...and even if its output seems perfectly random, its still caused. The computer has done a good job in mimicking randomness...but the output has been selected by an algorithm. And you are right, the resulting '3' is NOT 'uncaused' in the algorithm, quite the opposite...the entire event was determined by a predefined chain of operations..the randomness is merely an illusion. If we had precise knowledge of those algorithms, we could predict the output. This is a 'caused' event.

Such is not the world of particle physics. Its funny you mentioned atomic decay....here is an event that perfectly describes the kind of 'uncaused' randomness I'm referring to.

The precise timing of atomic decay does NOT reflect ANY underlying algorithm at all. We could say that instability in the nucleus caused the decay, but what in particular caused the atom to decay that that moment, and not another one? Oh we could narrow it down a little based on what we know about the instability of the particle, but the precise timing of the event is completely unpredictable. One might think this is merely the result of incomplete knowledge on our part...but this is NOT true. In the quantum world, random chance is not nested in an algorithm, otherwise the observed randomness would merely reflect a lack of knowledge of the 'algorithm'. In other words, we could determine exactly when an atom will decay, if we had enough information about its nature. But QM has clearly declared that this is simply NOT the case. So there is, in fact, a nature to an electron that is completely random, elusive, and non-deterministic...this is what I mean by 'uncaused'...an event that has absolutely NO RELATION to the initial variables and conditions in an experiment. In a computer this is impossible...but your brain is another story.

The definition of 'random' is actually a mathmetically deep subject but for me it suffices to say that a random event is one where the outcome is based upon factors sufficiently unrelated to the input. The value of a dice toss is related to the physics of the toss, but most people are unable to control the outcome and thus the number returned appears to be a random function.

Almost...a truly random event is 'completely' unrelated to the input....and this is why the word 'uncaused' is applicable. Rolling dice: you're right, its a determined event, and only 'appears' random like you said...but why is this relevant? This is simiply not the case with particle physics.

As to free will: yes, there is a physics underlying the brain, but it is sufficiently unrelated to the perceived brain states that the two systems are almost independent. The physical principles that are exploited to form the CPU of the forum's server have very little to do with the appearence of this forum. (In fact, that is the point of the Java language.)

So? I don't see the relevance here either. The point is that we should be able to map any action in the brain strictly by tracing every single physical and chemical event that caused that action, correct? Just like we could trace any computer event back along a chain of executed instructions nestled inside pre-defined routines.

You refer to a computer system. Unlike the brain, a computer sytem operates in a strictly deterministic way, despite software that may give us the illusion of randomness. In short, every event in a computer system is caused. We've given it a pre-defined set of instructions and some set of inputs, when we execute the code...the events that follow are completely predetermined.

If this was the way our brains worked then by definition we have no free will. Our actions are merely reflect a set of predefined algorithms and if we understand precisely how they work, we can determine everything the brain will do based on its input conditions. Without physical randomness (a la classical physics), your brain chemistry could be described in precisely this way.

Lucky for us, nature has intrinsic and true randomness ingrained at the particle level...otherwise we would have no hope of free will whatsoever. Our brain chemistry has a degree of determinism in its workings, and a degree of randomness as well. But its a double-edged sword. We have no means to exert any kind of control over this kind of randomness...so it too denies us our free will.

In short, every event that happens in your brain can be described as either determined or random (or some superposition of both in a complex chain of events). But neither gives you any chance of exerting any real CONTROL (although you might percieve it that way). And so the demise of free will.

 

[Mike Flynn]

In other words, I don't think that there is any good evidence to say that if we knew the complete physical state of a brain at time 'A' we would be able to determine its state at time 'B' for all instances. (Obviously if the brain is dead at A it is likely to still be dead at B.)

hw

Actually, there IS good evidence that even if we knew everything we could possibly know about state 'A', we could only specify 'likely' states that would result. The brain is not strictly deterministic.

But you side-stepped the notion of control. What events cause the state change? And if they are determined or indeterminate, where is the room for control?

 

[Mike Flynn]

Mike, I thought you may enjoy this quote:

It is impossible to trap modern physics into predicting anything with perfect determinism because it deals with probabilities from the outset.--Sir Arthur Eddington

Thank God for that!

And thanks for the quote.

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

The dichotomy is not between randomness and nonrandomness.

In fact, the dichotomy is not the point at all.

If, as you seem to believe, all events (as you do not like me using the word cause here) are caused then it what sense can they be considered free?

That is the problem. If something is caused it is not free. Thus, free will cannot exist.

If something is caused it can still be free. Free will simply means that another being is not dictating what you do or you are not limited by the circumstances.

You cause your decision by considering memories and knowledge from your brain. Your brain recieved this information from external sources, this much is true. However how you interpret that information is internal, which is again affected by other memories/knowledge which all came from external sources. Without external inputs of information the human mind is useless, we're less than infants without our senses to give us information. The brain can be seen as a storage device that relies on negative/positive feedback to make judgements.

There is no denying that our thoughts are inspired by outside inputs, however an input does not constitute another agency, external circumstance, or deity, therefore it does not affect free will. Our thoughts and actions are completely of our own doing. I could easily stick a knife in an electrical socket, however I choose not to due to my knowledge of electricity. That knowledge does not limit me in any way, it merely gives me a reference to consider when executing logic in my mind. If I so choose I can discard that logic and zap myself, however the logical part of me makes a much better arguement than my defiant side so I don't, however the possibility remains. That's really what seperates us from machines, we can choose to defy our logic "programming" if we wish.

An external circumstance, as I understand it, is something that limits your ability to choose. Back to the cake and bannana analogy. You can't decide which you want, you keep waivering back and forth as you weigh the pros and cons. However your in a lunch line so your time is limited. You will have to make a decision at that moment and you choose cake. Ten seconds earlier you would have chosen the bannana, ten seconds in the future you would have chosen the bannana. However at that particular instant in which you are forced to choose due to an external circumstance beyond your control you choose the cake. You had your free will limited in that case.

An external input is simply something you can take into your mind, memorize, think about, etc... It may have a real life effect (watching somebody die) but the actual input into your mind is purely within your mind. We can also control to a certain degree which inputs reach us.

 

[Mike Flynn]

If something is caused it can still be free. Free will simply means that another being is not dictating what you do or you are not limited by the circumstances.

No other being is required here. Its nature, pure and simple. And what difference does it make if events happen within your brain or outside it?

Think about it this way: could you will a plate to move across the table without touching it? Of course not. The motion of the plate is governed by the impersonal forces that act on it, right? So in order to move it, you would have to exert some force...you'd have to touch it.

Similarly, how would you 'cause' a chain of events to take place in your brain? What sets things in motion as it were. Can you 'will' a neuron to fire? Wouldn't that require another neuron?... and how would you 'will' that one to fire?

Don't try to weave the complexity of human behaviour into the concept of free will here....narrow it down to the simplest thing. There is no room for causal control in the machinery (or the guts) of the brain.

 

[Happy Wonderer]

I don't agree. By 'caused' I mean some event that can be precisely determined by input conditions. 'Uncaused' is an event that has absolutely no relation whatsoever to the input conditions....

While your definition of random is acceptable, your example is not really relevant. A computer algorithm uses a particular set of mathematical sequences to determine a random value...and even if its output seems perfectly random, its still caused. The computer has done a good job in mimicking randomness...but the output has been selected by an algorithm.

Incorrect. Computer algorithms (plus appropriate hardware) exist that use the results of atomic decay to generate random numbers. (Note, perfectly random is a technical term and neither example is perfectly random, but we could get way off into a pointless digression here.)

However, you are contradicting yourself. You say that random means "no relationship to input conditions" and yet you say that a computer-generated pseudo-random number doesn't fit the bill. Why? What relationship does the algorithm that generates the result of rand(10) have to the input conditions of the computer poker game that uses it to generate a hand? If the algorithm is based upon the high order bits of the time second XORed with the low order bits of the tick count (cycles since the computer started), what relationship is there? The result depends upon when the computer was turned on and the time that the hand is dealt. It doesn't matter that it isn't a very good random number generator, its result has "no relationship to the input conditions."

But QM has clearly declared that this is simply NOT the case. So there is, in fact, a nature to an electron that is completely random, elusive, and non-deterministic...this is what I mean by 'uncaused'...an event that has absolutely NO RELATION to the initial variables and conditions in an experiment. In a computer this is impossible...but your brain is another story.

Why? What makes you think that a computer can't respond to the environment in the same way that the human brain does? If the brain is just a computer, then you might be able to argue that free will doesn't exist. I don't think we have enough evidence to answer that question one way or another.

So? I don't see the relevance here either. The point is that we should be able to map any action in the brain strictly by tracing every single physical and chemical event that caused that action, correct? Just like we could trace any computer event back along a chain of executed instructions nestled inside pre-defined routines.

Your example here would be talking about determining the current state of the brain exactly (which QM suggests may not be possible for any system). That is unrelated to free will. Having a detector that says 'this person is in love' is quite different than a detector that says 'this person will fall in love.' Or: a perfect historian could precisely trace back the steps that led to World War II. Quite different from a historian who could exactly predict WWIII.

You refer to a computer system. Unlike the brain, a computer sytem operates in a strictly deterministic way, despite software that may give us the illusion of randomness. In short, every event in a computer system is caused. We've given it a pre-defined set of instructions and some set of inputs, when we execute the code...the events that follow are completely predetermined.

Ah yes, if we knew the pre-defined set of instructions and inputs we should be able to tell something as simple about an algorithm as whether it will halt, correct? I'm not even talking about the results that it returns, just whether it ever terminates. Surprisingly, you can't. Google "Turing halting problem." This was one of the most important modern insights into mathematics (the Turing Machine idea that helped lead to the modern computer was just an insignificant sidelight) by one of the greatest modern geniuses. Sadly he was hounded to death for his homosexuality but that is another story.

If this was the way our brains worked then by definition we have no free will. Our actions are merely reflect a set of predefined algorithms and if we understand precisely how they work, we can determine everything the brain will do based on its input conditions. Without physical randomness (a la classical physics), your brain chemistry could be described in precisely this way.

Lucky for us, nature has intrinsic and true randomness ingrained at the particle level...otherwise we would have no hope of free will whatsoever. Our brain chemistry has a degree of determinism in its workings, and a degree of randomness as well.

I'm not a biochemist, but I don't think that brain states have yet been shown to have much to do with quantum uncertainty. I believe (would love to see a biochemist jump in) that the events in the brain happen at well above the quantum level. However, I don't think that we know even close to enough about the brain to say that without QM we would be able to predict the next state of the brain from the current one (plus inputs.)

In short, every event that happens in your brain can be described as either determined or random (or some superposition of both in a complex chain of events). But neither gives you any chance of exerting any real CONTROL (although you might percieve it that way). And so the demise of free will.

Argh, yet another term that "random" is supposedly the opposite of. "Non-deterministic" doesn't equate to 'random' (use google again.) However..

You say that every event in the brain is either A, Not A, or some combination of the two. It is hard to argue with that, but it is also pretty difficult to draw any conculsions from this tautology.

The essential question remains whether the next state of the brain can be determined from the current one. That is an open question; it is certainly not possible with current technology. Computer algorithms are simple compared to the brain's algorithms, and we don't even know the result of all possible computer algorithms. Experience indicates that it is difficult to accurately predict an individuals response to the environment. The (admittedly very little) evidence suggests that the system known as a human is not deterministic.

Digression: I think an essential point of disagreement is whether logic alone will be enough to settle this question. You bring up quantum mechanics, and that is enough to make me leery of any philosopher's answer. QM violates what were accepted logical principles right an left. You probably could not have predicted QM by using logic alone, you needed to experiment. My point (and it is late so I ramble) is that the universe could exist nicely in many possible different ways but it happens to exist in one particular way. (Why I liked math above physical sciences, there are a lot of non-derivable facts in the physical sciences that are hard to remember.)

hw

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

"No other being is required here. Its nature, pure and simple. And what difference does it make if events happen within your brain or outside it?"

Uh, yeah? Nature has absolutely nothing to do with free will unless it's a circumstance that is impeding you from making a decision.

An event outside your brain = Something actually happening in the real world wether it be an action, words in a book, or a piece of art. It's something that is not a part of you that can be observed. It doesn't have to be an "event" per se, just an input that you can perceive.

In your brain = Your brain recieves these inputs, deciphers them, then compares them to previous inputs to make a decision.

Without any inputs to compare you are quite literally nothing but a low order animal going off of nothing but instincts with nothing to reflect upon.


"Think about it this way: could you will a plate to move across the table without touching it? Of course not. The motion of the plate is governed by the impersonal forces that act on it, right? So in order to move it, you would have to exert some force...you'd have to touch it."

Duh? Don't know how you got mental matter manipulation out of what I said.


"Similarly, how would you 'cause' a chain of events to take place in your brain? What sets things in motion as it were. Can you 'will' a neuron to fire? Wouldn't that require another neuron?... and how would you 'will' that one to fire?"

Inputs cause it, you don't, however you control how those inputs are interpretted by relating them to other stored inputs. Free will is reactionairy, you have to have something to evaluate before any thoughts can happen. Say you touch something hot, a cell in your hand sends some negative feedback (pain) to your brain. Your instincts and logic tell you that pain = bad, so therefore you want to remove your hand. However you can deny these impulses and keep your hand there for a variety of good or stupid reasons. A simpler animal, a bug for instance, would retract it's arm/leg/wing immediatly without question.


"Don't try to weave the complexity of human behaviour into the concept of free will here....narrow it down to the simplest thing. There is no room for causal control in the machinery (or the guts) of the brain."

Free will is a complex human behaviour rooted in determinism. You can't have one without the other. If you want to know which neuron does what or what chemical triggers which response then we're all SOL because we don't know yet.

 

[Happy Wonderer]

Actually, there IS good evidence that even if we knew everything we could possibly know about state 'A', we could only specify 'likely' states that would result. The brain is not strictly deterministic.

But you side-stepped the notion of control. What events cause the state change? And if they are determined or indeterminate, where is the room for control?

Source? I'm a bit confused, are you saying that "there is good evidence that the brain is not strictly deterministic" or are you saying that general principles that apply to all physical systems imply that the brain (as a physical system) is not strictly deterministic. I would probably buy the latter, as I just said something very similar...

I do not get what I'm supposedly side-stepping. What does control have to do with the argument that I'm rebutting? It wasn't in the original argument, at least my search function doesn't find it on the page. (It is late so forgive me if I missed it and could you state it again please? It may have been in an argument you made earlier, I have trouble keeping track of who said what in an internet forum.)

hw

 

[Mike Flynn]

Incorrect. Computer algorithms (plus appropriate hardware) exist that use the results of atomic decay to generate random numbers. (Note, perfectly random is a technical term and neither example is perfectly random, but we could get way off into a pointless digression here.)

However, you are contradicting yourself. You say that random means "no relationship to input conditions" and yet you say that a computer-generated pseudo-random number doesn't fit the bill. Why? What relationship does the algorithm that generates the result of rand(10) have to the input conditions of the computer poker game that uses it to generate a hand? If the algorithm is based upon the high order bits of the time second XORed with the low order bits of the tick count (cycles since the computer started), what relationship is there? The result depends upon when the computer was turned on and the time that the hand is dealt. It doesn't matter that it isn't a very good random number generator, its result has "no relationship to the input conditions."

But it DOES...it relates precisely to when the computer was turned on...this is an input condition BY DEFINITION. The event of the card being drawed depends only on this predetermined value and a little bit of math. So I am not contradicting myself at all...'algorithmic' computer random number generators are determined by the input conditions, plain and simple. Its purely a function of design....I don't see how you can possibly prove otherwise. If you had one that was tied into a quantum event, then you could have an element of true randomness....but run of the mill computers like the one on your desk do not work this way.

But you're right...we are digressing. I'll try to use the computer example to bring us back to the point and illustrate the logic:

If the selection of the card was tied to a quantum event, then the computer, by definition, has no control over the selection. The random event generates a number, then the computer scales the selection into the appropriate range using a preset calculation. In other words, the computer DOES NOT 'will' the selection of the card if the process is TRULY random. It completely forgoes the element of control.

If, on the other hand, a computer like mine uses its internal algorithms to generate the 'random' value. Then the result is determined...but not freely by computer itself...the random value will vary with some input parameter (like the # of ticks since the computer was activated). So at the moment we turn the computer on, we could precisely predict what card it will draw at any given time in the future. The result is pre-determined and not in any way freely selected (or willed) by the computer.

So our computer system, based on these rules, cannot have free will. Either it is governed by cause and effect and its behaviour is completely and precisely predictable. Or it incorporates some element of true randomness into its behaviour over which it has no control. The combination of these two possibilities in a complex sequence of events still forgoes any element of free control. Say, the quantum random number generator generates a selection, and the computer 'decides what to do with it'. Well, the 'decision' is simply a function of pre-programmed functions that have no intrinsic 'free' nature. And the random selection was in no way determined by the 'will' of the machine.

The key point I am trying to make is that the laws of physics say that all particles in the universe are governed by PRECISELY the same logic. So there is no false dichotomy here. Classical determinism and random fluctuations together COMPLETELY describe all possible future states of all particles. If there are other possibilities...please share them here...but I don't think you will find any.

We have been quibbling about the definitions of the words 'uncaused', 'random', 'indeterminate', etc. Maybe you have a point (my language skills are not stellar I'm afraid). But nothing you have said so far contradicts the logic as it is described above.

In a nutshell:
If you are a purely physical entity, then every particle in your brain and body are governed by the laws of physics. Thus any and all future states of you (a conglomeration of these particles) is governed by a complex mix of classical deterministic forces and random indeterminate fluctuations. And the plain truth is that neither grants you with any possible freedom to 'move your finger when you feel like moving it' any more than they would permit a rock to fall off a cliff when it 'wills'. Any sense of this is illusory.

You can add as many layers of complexity as you like, and invite the leading neuro-physiologists to delve into the problem, and speculate on the overwhelming mystery of brain events...but none of these could refute the simple logical impossibility of a free force of will.

 

[Mike Flynn]

Malevolent milk man:

Just a quick note...we are digressing into an arguments about complexity of the human brain, etc. These points may have some merit on their own...but they are actually irrelevant to the logical argument that forms the basis of the case against free will.

Its simply not about complexity...its about logical impossibilities. I am trying to illustrate with various examples...but you are consistently missing the point....I'm not blaming you BTW...my examples are probably not that great.

A little history:

Back in the days when classical physics ruled the scientific landscape, logical reasoning would say that there is absolutely no possiblility of free will.

Here's why:

The motion of all particles can be exactly determined based on previously existing conditions. So once the universe was set into motion by some event, everything that happened to every particle after this event could be determined exactly in theory. So you, as a collection of these particles, wave your hand 'goodbye' at someone not because you willed it...but because of particle interactions that had taken place long before you were born. Your 'fate was sealed' so to speak and your entire future was predetermined. Does this make sense?

Enter quantum physics. About 100 years ago it became clear that we could not precisely predict the fate of all particles in the universe. We found that every particle has an intrinsic random character to it. So no matter how exacting we are with our measurements, the particle defies absolute determinism...random chance is an inherent part of its character.

At first one might conclude "great, free will is now possible", but this analysis is flawed. The fate of any particle is now simply determined by a combination of determinsm and random chance. If you apply these principles to the matter in your body, it precludes any possibility of some kind of intrisic force of 'will' that would grant you with some ability to choose among arbitrary options.

You mentioned that the neurons firing in your brain is set into motion by the 'input'..but you also mentioned that the input does not necessarily force a particular output from your brain...you assert that the brain has some ability to accept input, and then 'freely choose' among various options for output. That would seem quite reasonable to most people, I'd say....and its a good model for free will.

Lets say that there was no such thing as quantum randomness for a moment. Then the input you receive in will determine the output explicitly, with no room for 'free will'. It may not seem that way to the casual observer...the input might go through a billion iterative connections and make it very difficult for us to exactly predict. But if we measured every pathway and connection in your brain, we could provide a stimulus, and predict exactly what physical events will transpire in your brain to produce a specific output. There is no way you could 'choose' otherwise. The input would trigger a series of completely predictable events.

Now lets add in quantum randomness. Now we measure everything in your brain and we find that we can't precisely predict what happens...we can only assign probablilities to what you might do. But the brain itself has no possible way of exerting any kind of control over the random character of its constituents...so a signal reaches a fork in the neural network...and chooses its path randomly, then preset systems in your brain react accordingly. There is no possibility of any kind of 'free choice' here. It just implies a degree of unpredictability that you yourself could not possibly control.

It doesn't matter how complex the brain is...as long as its particles are governed by the laws of physics then free will is simply a logical impossibility.

 

[Mike Flynn]

A quick note to everyone:

I'm going away for 1.5 weeks...but I really enjoy this thread. I'm just letting you know that if I don't respond for a while..don't take it personally...and don't think for a minute that I am throwing in the towel! Perhaps David could hold the line for me until I get back.

Thanks...

PS I might get a little time tonight to take a peek...but probably not.

Until then...remember: You are NOT responsible for your actions.

 

[Happy Wonderer]

But it DOES...it relates precisely to when the computer was turned on...this is an input condition BY DEFINITION. The event of the card being drawed depends only on this predetermined value and a little bit of math. So I am not contradicting myself at all...'algorithmic' computer random number generators are determined by the input conditions, plain and simple. Its purely a function of design....I don't see how you can possibly prove otherwise. If you had one that was tied into a quantum event, then you could have an element of true randomness....but run of the mill computers like the one on your desk do not work this way.

So free will can't exist because atomic decay detectors are too expensive for run-of-the-mill computers to be equipped with? How much cheaper would they have to be to make free will affordable? Sorry to poke fun at the argument, but that is pretty weak. General principles don't usually depend upon retail (or wholesale) prices.

You haven't answered my objection. What relationship does the time that a computer is turned on have to the input conditions passed to the function 'generate random hand?" The GRH algorithm is dependent upon variables such as how many cards are left in the deck. How is the algorithm dependent upon the time that the computer is turned on -- especially if I don't specify how the random function is to be generated? Thus, the GRH algorithm is independent (by any reasonble use of the word) of the algorithm used to generate the random number.

But you're right...we are digressing. I'll try to use the computer example to bring us back to the point and illustrate the logic:

If the selection of the card was tied to a quantum event, then the computer, by definition, has no control over the selection. The random event generates a number, then the computer scales the selection into the appropriate range using a preset calculation. In other words, the computer DOES NOT 'will' the selection of the card if the process is TRULY random. It completely forgoes the element of control.

If you somehow want to shoehorn 'will' into an algorithm-sized box, why isn't the part where the computer "scales the selection into the appropriate range" part of the computer's will? Can you answer that without using some other property of computers that indicate they don't have 'will'? Ah, reading on I see that you can't...[/i]

If, on the other hand, a computer like mine uses its internal algorithms to generate the 'random' value. Then the result is determined..... So at the moment we turn the computer on, we could precisely predict what card it will draw at any given time in the future. The result is pre-determined and not in any way freely selected (or willed) by the computer.

So our computer system, based on these rules, cannot have free will. Either it is governed by cause and effect and its behaviour is completely and precisely predictable. Or it incorporates some element of true randomness into its behaviour over which it has no control. ... Well, the 'decision' is simply a function of pre-programmed functions that have no intrinsic 'free' nature. And the random selection was in no way determined by the 'will' of the machine.

This is circular. All you are saying is that computer's don't have free will because they are pre-programmed to implement algorithms. This was not an initial property of computers in your first proposition. You say that the electron decay computer has no will because the algorithm has no control over the outcome, yet the algorithmic random number has no will because it is an algorithm. Thus, you have only proven that something you assume not to have free will doesn't have free will.

What is truly unknown is whether the human brain can be described algorithmically. There is proof that not every function can; whether the brain implements such a function is unknown. Given the difficulties with AI research, it looks like it may not be true that an algorithmic approach to intelligence (let alone 'will') is going to be fruitful.

The key point I am trying to make is that the laws of physics say that all particles in the universe are governed by PRECISELY the same logic. So there is no false dichotomy here. Classical determinism and random fluctuations together COMPLETELY describe all possible future states of all particles. If there are other possibilities...please share them here...but I don't think you will find any.

I won't pretend to be a physicist, but huh? All possible future states can be described (are predetermined) if you include the uncertaintity about their future states into account? Sounds like saying "no event is random if you take randomness into acount."

We have been quibbling about the definitions of the words 'uncaused', 'random', 'indeterminate', etc.

No we have not been quibbiling about definitions, I have pointed out that 'random' is not the opposite of 'caused' or 'determined.' That is a functional difference, not a definitional one.

In a nutshell:
AIf you are a purely physical entity, then every particle in your brain and body are governed by the laws of physics. Thus any and all future states of you (a conglomeration of these particles) is governed by a complex mix of classical deterministic forces and random indeterminate fluctuations. BAnd the plain truth is that neither grants you with any possible freedom to 'move your finger when you feel like moving it' any more than they would permit a rock to fall off a cliff when it 'wills'. Any sense of this is illusory.

Why does A imply B?

HW

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

Ok, I see where our disagreement comes from.

You are saying that a chain of events is destined to happen due to the laws of nature because particles can only behave in certain ways, plus or minus a little randomness from quantum mechanics. I agree with you on this point.

However you say that the brain's complexities should not be taken into account, I think they should. If we were just talking about simple orgamisms who only react in a specific manner everytime I'd say you were right.

Going down to the quantum level of particles when the brain is concerned doesn't seem like it should matter. You can't apply quantum mechanics to a baseball no more than you can apply the rules of baseball to a particle. The scope of the two is very different. Just so long as a majority of the particles behave as they should higher order structures can maintain stability and near absolute predictability. We know how the more advanced structures like molecules will behave, there is very little to no randomness involved at that level. The electrical and chemical pulses also rely somewhat on a zerg rush (en masse, zerg = starcraft reference). If there were just one electron or just one molecule sent then yes, quantum randomness would cause alot of problems. However many are sent. So even if a few are lost in the abyss of quantum randomness there are still enough to make the connection. Basically it's good enough to get the job done even though it's not perfect.

Determinism is a vital part of free will. It is the foundation that the brain can manipulate to achieve a desired effect. By choosing to accept or ignore inputs that you have stored as memories you can make a decision that is rooted in determinism but uses only the chosen state (accepted or ignored) which sets determinism in motion. The brain relies on determinism to think, make choices, be indecisive, etc. However we are not REQUIRED to act in a certain way. We may be restricted in the paths that we can conceive but none of those paths are closed. Each path, or choice, is merely a continuation of the same cause and effect branching chain of a determined path that can have many possible outcomes based upon your decision. All are possible, however only one will exist.

 

[Mike Flynn]

So free will can't exist because atomic decay detectors are too expensive for run-of-the-mill computers to be equipped with? How much cheaper would they have to be to make free will affordable? Sorry to poke fun at the argument, but that is pretty weak. General principles don't usually depend upon retail (or wholesale) prices.

The statement about computers on the 'desk' not typically having atomic decay random # generators was simply a passing comment, not related in any way to my free will argument. But if you want to pick it apart and poke fun...knock yourself out!

You haven't answered my objection. What relationship does the time that a computer is turned on have to the input conditions passed to the function 'generate random hand?" The GRH algorithm is dependent upon variables such as how many cards are left in the deck. How is the algorithm dependent upon the time that the computer is turned on -- especially if I don't specify how the random function is to be generated? Thus, the GRH algorithm is independent (by any reasonble use of the word) of the algorithm used to generate the random number.

In your last post YOU said:

If the algorithm is based upon the high order bits of the time second XORed with the low order bits of the tick count (cycles since the computer started), what relationship is there?

So YOU'RE the one who stated 'cycles since computer started'. Then when I respond to that, you just bring up something else.

THIS TIME its all about the 'GRH' algorithm...sheesh...make up your mind. Why don't you just copy out the complete pseudo-code for the 'GRH' and whatever other RAND functions it might fetch a number from, and I would be delighted to show you why its output is strictly deterministic. And then you can cook up another one and we can do it all over again....whee!

This is circular.

At least you have that part nailed. I completely agree.

I won't pretend to be a physicist, but huh? All possible future states can be described (are predetermined) if you include the uncertaintity about their future states into account? Sounds like saying "no event is random if you take randomness into acount."

I'm sorry you don't get this...its the critical argument I'm making here (minus all of the banter with the computer analogy). If you have a particle (or a person) who is governed by the deterministic laws of classical physics, then every future state of that is precisely predictable from prior states...there is no room for free will for this particle (or person)...it's fate can be precisely determined. If we factor in quantum fluctuations into the particles nature, then this dissolves the particles fate (it can't be in any way precisely predicted), but there is still no room for the particle (or person) to have free will, since these fluctuations are completely random and the particle has no means of controlling (or selecting or 'willing') the outcome of the random event.

If your physical being is governed by the same laws that the particles in the universe are governed by. Then free will is simply not possible...not for a single electron, or for a collection of trillions of them bonded with other particles in your body. So when you 'decide' to stand up, in theory, the motion was not freely willed. It couldn't be.

--------------

HW...I have poked a little fun at your computer arguments here as well...please don't take it the wrong way. I think its quite clear that I'm not convincing you, and you're not dissuading me. Its probably time we called it a draw. (Of course you can still feel free to respond and get the last word if you like) This will be my last response on this...I just can't think of any other way to make my point.

I'm off for a while...but believe me, I really apprecieated your arguments. I only wish I could articulate mine better...its the physics degree in me...it muddles my ability to make coherent sentences.

Until next time...

 

[ZaraDurden]

Mike:

When I speak about the mind as not being physical, I mean not actually material. You enjoy speaking in terms of physics, so i will say the mind is something in which m=0, much how we can see light and we know it exists but it has no mass. I think it is very possible that the mind is part of our natural realm, but our understanding of it is lacking. I know, its not really acceptable for me either to say "we just dont understand it right now". But I think the possiblities are strong that one day we will.

I will ask you also not to put the word science in any kind of quotations next time when talking about psychology, because it really is a science, be it a young one. There are many perspectives of psychology, some believe we can never figure the mind out, some think we can.

I know I am not going to change your opinion, just giving you an alternative view. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask. If not, have fun, check you soon.

 

[Happy Wonderer]

So YOU'RE the one who stated 'cycles since computer started'. Then when I respond to that, you just bring up something else.

THIS TIME its all about the 'GRH' algorithm...sheesh...make up your mind. Why don't you just copy out the complete pseudo-code for the 'GRH' and whatever other RAND functions it might fetch a number from, and I would be delighted to show you why its output is strictly deterministic. And then you can cook up another one and we can do it all over again....whee!

Your lack of understanding puzzles me, maybe a maths person and a physics person can't communicate. We need a social scientist! The "generate random hand function (GRH) uses the tick-count based random function. Although unnecessary for theory, I thought that poker would be easier to talk about (as opposed to 'the number' and 'the previous number'.)

If you really don't understand why the hand generated by GRH is random with respect to any other hand generated by GRH then say so and we can discuss it. If you agree that hands are random wrt. each other, then we have an algorithm that by your definition is both deterministic and random. Therefore, random is not the same thing as non-deterministic. If you think that I'm talking about the wrong kind of random then explain.

So let's see if you can be "delighted" to show that every program's output is deterministic. If it is, you should be able to predict any program's output. If you are a computing engine, then someone should be able to write a computer program to do the same. Fair enough, so far? Let's call this program Predict which takes as a parameter the source code to a program and predicts what the return value is. (It only works on programs without parameters to simplify matters.)

Now what output do you predict that GRH will return if is run at a specific tick-count? Got that program finished yet? OK, looks good! Great work!

Oh, I forgot to tell you that GRH has a tiny bit of additional logic. I stole the code to Predict after you finished it and incorporated it into GRH. I only know how to write poker-hand-generating functions, so the only thing tha I could think of to pass as a parameter was the source code to GRH. Just to make you mad, I added the following right before the exit:

	   if (ReturnValue == Predict([i]<source code to GRH incl this line>[/i]))
			 return (mod(ReturnValue+1,52));

So what value do you predict that GRH returns? If you predict that GRH will return the Ace of Spades, it returns the Two of Spades instead! Don't try this at home... the proof shows that a general version of predict cannot be written.

(No, I'm not clever enough to have invented this, it is a reformulation of the Turing halting problem that I mentioned in an earlier post. I said to use Google!) The upshot of this is that algorithms, numbers, and functions are remarkably unintuitive. If you really want to get blown away see Chaitin's constant which is an instance of a function that can be defined but whose value we can never compute!

The relationship between this and free will? Well, my main point is that you can't assume that just because a system implements an algorithm that its result can be determined . So if you hook me up to a machine and predict that I'll buy a 'snickers bar' tomorrow I might decide to spite you and buy a 'mars bar' instead. Or I might decide that is what you want me to do and buy the snickers anyway. The fact that I'm physical implementation of an algorithm isn't enough to prove that you can predict my 'output.' This has nothing to do with randomness, quantum effects, or the uncertantity principle.

I'm sorry you don't get this...its the critical argument I'm making here (minus all of the banter with the computer analogy). If you have a particle (or a person) who is governed by the deterministic laws of classical physics, then every future state of that is precisely predictable from prior states...there is no room for free will for this particle (or person)...it's fate can be precisely determined.

Disproven above. The undecidability problem doesn't rely on quantum physics. (Not all proofs of undecideability rely on the halting problem... Ed: Enough already!)

If we factor in quantum fluctuations into the particles nature, then this dissolves the particles fate (it can't be in any way precisely predicted), but there is still no room for the particle (or person) to have free will, since these fluctuations are completely random and the particle has no means of controlling (or selecting or 'willing') the outcome of the random event.

This is a misuse of the word "random". See previous posts, but also recognize that because one can quantify (some types of) uncertantity using probability does not mean that uncertantity is randomness. The models that physicists have come up with work only when you 'factor in' some uncertantity. A convenient way to do that is to use a probability model that is based upon a theoretical random function. Particles could easily be 'willing' the outcome of quantum fluctuations except of course particles aren't usually seen as having 'will' because they are just particles. This seems familiar.

If your physical being is governed by the same laws that the particles in the universe are governed by. Then free will is simply not possible.
..not for a single electron, or for a collection of trillions of them bonded with other particles in your body. So when you 'decide' to stand up, in theory, the motion was not freely willed. It couldn't be.

Not shown, and the evidence is against it. Physical objects (computers) can implement virtual systems that are unrelated to the laws of physics.

--------------

HW...I have poked a little fun at your computer arguments here as well...please don't take it the wrong way. I think its quite clear that I'm not convincing you, and you're not dissuading me.

No problems, poking fun is often an effective way of coming to an understanding, as the 'pokee' has to explain why their argument isn't the ludicrous creature presented. I don't actually see an argument that you poked fun at, though.

I only wish I could articulate mine better...its the physics degree in me...it muddles my ability to make coherent sentences.

Ah, a physics person talking to a mathematican. Nobody will understand us, including ourselves! (We are **** lucky that it appears that neither of us know how to put greek symbols into HTML)

hw

 

[LorentzHA]

Mike & Happy Wonderer-

Not sure why the two of you could not communicate effectively? The language of Physics is Mathematics-the English is secondary. I had one Physics prof in undergrad who said this over and over...so when I read that a Physics person and a math person could not communicate and would need the help of a "social scientist" I was a little perplexed.

 

[Mike Flynn]

This is a misuse of the word "random". See previous posts, but also recognize that because one can quantify (some types of) uncertantity using probability does not mean that uncertantity is randomness. The models that physicists have come up with work only when you 'factor in' some uncertantity. A convenient way to do that is to use a probability model that is based upon a theoretical random function. Particles could easily be 'willing' the outcome of quantum fluctuations except of course particles aren't usually seen as having 'will' because they are just particles. This seems familiar.

Hi HW...still there?

Don't worry everyone...I'm not about to re-hash everything here...but this was a thread that I enjoyed very much and I wanted to make a small point here...although its unrelated to free will.

HW, I think I understand your reservations about the use of the word 'random'. You should know that in the world of particle physics it is used this way as a matter of course...thats why I stick to it so easily. You should also know that the idea that 'particles could be 'willing' the outcome' is not a new one. Its akin to stating that the appearance of uncertainty in the quantum formulation reflects a lack of a complete understanding of the nature of the particle in question. In other words, there may be underlying causes that govern the exact location that an electron will land in a double slit experiment...the element of uncertainty, then, is illusory and works in the model but it really reflects incomplete knowledge on our part. Just so you know, the essential formulation of QM actually makes it quite clear that this IS ABSOLUTELY NOT the case. In fact if we were to ever find even a single example of a quantum event where the element of uncertainty (physisicts say 'random chance') is NOT present, it would completely undermine the theory at its roots. And if anyone anywhere even in an alternate universe (in some QM formulations) could eliminate the random element and make a precise prediction (even God Himself)...quantum physics would be doomed and our entire formulation of it rubbish.

If you need more info on this, I encourage you to do some research on it...I'm looking forward to reading up on some of your equations you mentioned.
[/QUOTE=HW]
(We are **** lucky that it appears that neither of us know how to put greek symbols into HTML)

hw[/QUOTE]

You mean everyone else is lucky!