Free will and determinism

[Bradskii]

We make decisions based on things in our reality, or things we can conceptualize

I think that was what I was saying.

Do you know that if horses had gods they'd all look like horses.

 

[Bradskii]

It's not some physical characteristic of the symbol, but its meaning, that leads to nuerological activity. So we have something that isn't physical, in meaning, leading to a physical response in nuerological activity.

The physical representation of the symbol carries the meaning. If you show me a cat, then the information about the physical representation of that object is input. If I have seen a cat before then I recognise it as a cat. Which is irrelevant to the problem that you have. Because we both know that what you have proposed is dualism. And you don't know how it works. You don't know enough about what does work to even formulate a proposal. You've dug this hole and you don't have the means to get out. But I'll keep asking anyway.

How is something that is external to the process acting on the process itself? What is it changing? Where do we look?

 

[Bradskii]

However, maybe we want to concentrate on the possibility that even IF Determinism were to be true, that this possible state wouldn't by necessity infer that culpability for a host of crimes, sins, or other social infringements and/or deviations should somehow become further protected?

We do this anyway. It's the introduction of mitigating circumstances. We already know that they have an effect. The same with a crime of passion. The same if someone charged is found to be mentally ill. Or has the IQ of a child. We already know, as a fact, that past conditions determine our actions.

Take that to the logical conclusion and you end up with people saying 'But it feels exactly like I have free will' and trying to sneak dualism in through the back door.

 

[Merrill]

We do this anyway. It's the introduction of mitigating circumstances. We already know that they have an effect. The same with a crime of passion. The same if someone charged is found to be mentally ill. Or has the IQ of a child. We already know, as a fact, that past conditions determine our actions.

Take that to the logical conclusion and you end up with people saying 'But it feels exactly like I have free will' and trying to sneak dualism in through the back door.

Whether or not an insane person, or a mentally-disabled person, is guilty of a crime is not based simply on past conditions

it is based on the principle that we do not convict individuals who were not responsible for their actions, because they were not in command of their will

past conditions do not determine our actions: our response and perception of those conditions does

if we have no will, and science can determine our actions based on prior conditions and stimulus, we can predict with absolute certainty every criminal action. So we can simply start pre-charging people with crimes

dude, hard determinism is an illogical rabbit hole

 

[Bradskii]

Though in a way, I believe I've touched on it at least tangentially in pointing out that if determinants are directly causal in human behavior then they must also be directly causal in human beliefs about behavior...

Well of course they are! It would be a nonsensical situation that you came to a decision about something with absolutely no prior input of any kind. It's the input, aka evidence, that convinces you. Or not, as the case may be.

You can't decide to be convinced by an argument or not. It either makes sense to you, or it doesn't. Or perhaps it tends to point you in one particular direction. And further input, aka evidence, will again affect the position you hold. I find it more than frustrating that I have to point this out. It's plainly obvious. Yet you state it in such a way that it's somehow a negative. That it means that we're all automatons of some sort.

If you were entirely agnostic about free will and you watch an hour long discussion between two people, one putting forward one case and the other the opposite, then you will automatically tend towards one view or the other. Hopefully by the strength of the arguments they use and the evidence they produce (and not because one was a better speaker of seemed more genial). So what has just happened? You have reached a preferred decision based on prior input. Based on antecedent conditions. You cannot possibly accept that one guy has the better arguments and yet prefer the other ones. So the arguments determine your position. And your position will determine which choices you make. This will happen whether you have free will or not.

Yet what we have being proposed is just the opposite. That because we have free will then you could somehow actually decide to prefer the arguments you didn't prefer. How on earth does that make any sense whatsoever? Please explain that to me.

 

[Bradskii]

Whether or not an insane person, or a mentally-disabled person, is guilty of a crime is not based simply on past conditions

The person had a mental illness when they committed the offence. It was a prior condition. They didn't become ill during or after the act. But proior to it.

it is based on the principle that we do not convict individuals who were not responsible for their actions, because they were not in command of their will

Exactly. Retributive punishment makes no sense.

past conditions do not determine our actions: our response and perception of those conditions does

That's just weird. You say that past conditions don't determine our decisions but then you say we base our decisions on those past conditions.

if we have no will, and science can determine our actions based on prior conditions and stimulus, we can predict with absolute certainty every criminal action. So we can simply start pre-charging people with crimes

I guess you came late to the thread. It was stated very early on that we can see what past conditions determined our actions but we cannot possibly predict what our actions are likely to be (unless it's a ridiculously simple event). One example was me breaking a guitar string one evening which was one event that determined what I had for breakfast the following day. There is no way that one could know that the one event would lead to the other.

In other words, don't confuse determinism with predictability. A chaotic system is unpredictable but entirely determinate.

 

[Merrill]

The person had a mental illness when they committed the offence. It was a prior condition. They didn't become ill during or after the act. But proior to it.

Exactly. Retributive punishment makes no sense.

That's just weird. You say that past conditions don't determine our decisions but then you say we base our decisions on those past conditions.

I guess you came late to the thread. It was stated very early on that we can see what past conditions determined our actions but we cannot possibly predict what our actions are likely to be (unless it's a ridiculously simple event). One example was me breaking a guitar string one evening which was one event that determined what I had for breakfast the following day. There is no way that one could know that the one event would lead to the other.

In other words, don't confuse determinism with predictability. A chaotic system is unpredictable but entirely determinate.

"don't confuse determinism with predictability. A chaotic system is unpredictable but entirely determinate"

that is another way of putting forth a non-falsifiable proposition and then basing other claims on it

1. The world is materialist and determinist
2. We cannot know all the causes and prior conditions that go into any specific decision or result

so we can't predict if a person will commit a crime, but we can work backwards and determine all the causes and conditions that went into the person's decision to commit a crime?

It reminds me of superstring theory. M theory says there are 11 dimensions and the vibration of strings within these dimensions determine the behavior of all sub-atomic particles in our universe. But there is absolutely no way to demonstrate this or prove it --you just have to take our word for it

I can't argue against non-falsifiable claims

 

[Fervent]

The physical representation of the symbol carries the meaning. If you show me a cat, then the information about the physical representation of that object is input. If I have seen a cat before then I recognise it as a cat. Which is irrelevant to the problem that you have. Because we both know that what you have proposed is dualism. And you don't know how it works. You don't know enough about what does work to even formulate a proposal. You've dug this hole and you don't have the means to get out. But I'll keep asking anyway.

How is something that is external to the process acting on the process itself? What is it changing? Where do we look?

What happened to meaning not being part of the process? Why are you going back and forth?

 

[Bradskii]

"don't confuse determinism with predictability. A chaotic system is unpredictable but entirely determinate"

that is another way of putting forth a non-falsifiable proposition and then basing other claims on it.

Well, O.K... I break a guitar string on a Monday evening. So you should be able to predict what I am going to have for breakfast on Tuesday morning. The point being that any one event can have so many outcomes depending on countless other events that the permutations are endless. But each event will have an effect. Which determines an outcome.

1. The world is materialist and determinist
2. We cannot know all the causes and prior conditions that go into any specific decision or result

so we can't predict if a person will commit a crime, but we can work backwards and determine all the causes and conditions that went into the person's decision to commit a crime?

Got it in one.

It reminds me of superstring theory. M theory says there are 11 dimensions and the vibration of strings within these dimensions determine the behavior of all sub-atomic particles in our universe. But there is absolutely no way to demonstrate this or prove it --you just have to take our word for it

I can't argue against non-falsifiable claims

Forget about string theory. Think of any event and there will have been a reason for it happening (unless it was truly random, but free will doesn't live there). When you have your reasons, you'll have the cause of the event. Antecedent conditions. Which determined said event.

So both positions are falsifiable. The first by predicting the future of a chaotic system exactly from an initial condition (what my breakfast going to be). And the second by giving an example of an event without a cause.

 

[Bradskii]

What happened to meaning not being part of the process? Why are you going back and forth?

'Meaning' within the system - the operation of the process itself. That is well known. And has been explained to you at least twice. That is deterministic. Photons hit some protein. Deterministic. It creates an electrical charge. Deterministic. The charge activates an action potential in a neuron. Deterministic. That releases neurotransmitters. Deterministic. They cross a synapse and activate receptors on the next neuron. Deterministic. And so on.

But you have said that there is something outside the system which is not deterministic which changes physical matter within the system. And you said it was 'meaning'. But you haven't given any idea where this 'meaning' is from, what form it takes, how it is developed, where it acts within the known system, what the effects are, what physical changes are made and when they are made.

I'm not actually sure that you know that this is a form of dualism. And if you had started off with that and suggested something akin to a soul where free will decisions are made - somewhere and somehow, then there would have been nothing to discuss. You would have just claimed that there is something other than the mind for which there is no evidence. But you didn't want to do that. So you dug this rather large hole when you said that wherever this 'something' exists, it acts directly on physical matter within the existing known system.

And not only haven't you said how it does this, you really have no idea how it could do this.

 

[Fervent]

'Meaning' within the system - the operation of the process itself. That is well known. And has been explained to you at least twice. That is deterministic. Photons hit some protein. Deterministic. It creates an electrical charge. Deterministic. The charge activates an action potential in a neuron. Deterministic. That releases neurotransmitters. Deterministic. They cross a synapse and activate receptors on the next neuron. Deterministic. And so on.

But you have said that there is something outside the system which is not deterministic which changes physical matter within the system. And you said it was 'meaning'. But you haven't given any idea where this 'meaning' is from, what form it takes, how it is developed, where it acts within the known system, what the effects are, what physical changes are made and when they are made.

I'm not actually sure that you know that this is a form of dualism. And if you had started off with that and suggested something akin to a soul where free will decisions are made - somewhere and somehow, then there would have been nothing to discuss. You would have just claimed that there is something other than the mind for which there is no evidence. But you didn't want to do that. So you dug this rather large hole when you said that wherever this 'something' exists, it acts directly on physical matter within the existing known system.

And not only haven't you said how it does this, you really have no idea how it could do this.

Your explanation of the process excludes meaning, then you say that meaning is in the physical aspects of the symbols. So again I ask, what is the physical characteristic that gives the symbol its meaning and leads to the electrical signals?

 

[Bradskii]

Your explanation of the process excludes meaning, then you say that meaning is in the physical aspects of the symbols. So again I ask, what is the physical characteristic that gives the symbol its meaning and leads to the electrical signals?

It's a picture of a cat, for heaven's sake. It means 'cat'. I understand that it means 'cat' because physical stuff is happening which results in a memory of a 'cat' being triggered. So I can associate the physical representation with 'cat'. I know what it means. This is all part of an existing and well understood process.

You, on the other hand, have something called 'meaning' appearing outside the process yet physically changing the process. And you have no idea how this could happen.

 

[Fervent]

It's a picture of a cat, for heaven's sake. It means 'cat'. I understand that it means 'cat' because physical stuff is happening which results in a memory of a 'cat' being triggered. So I can associate the physical representation with 'cat'. I know what it means. This is all part of an existing and well understood process.

You, on the other hand, have something called 'meaning' appearing outside the process yet physically changing the process. And you have no idea how this could happen.

Where did "a picture of a cat" come into the equation?

 

[Bradskii]

Where did "a picture of a cat" come into the equation?

How else do you input meaning without a symbol? How do I know what you mean unless you tell me you mean 'cat' by saying 'cat'? Or show me a cat. Or draw a picture of a cat. That applies to literally anything that has meaning.

 

[Fervent]

How else do you input meaning without a symbol? How do I know what you mean unless you tell me you mean 'cat' by saying 'cat'? Or show me a cat. Or draw a picture of a cat. That applies to literally anything that has meaning.

None of that explains where the meaning comes in in your description of the physical processes.

 

[Bradskii]

None of that explains where the meaning comes in in your description of the physical processes.

Do you know what a cat is? When you see a cat the photons hit your eyes etc etc etc and the signal triggers the memory you have of a small furry animal that likes mice. And no, I'm not going deep into the details of how memory is stored and how it is activated.

I'm still waiting for your details on the what, when and how something immaterial outside this system changes physical matter inside the system.

 

[o_mlly]

That's not what emergent properties are.

That is exactly what emegent properties are.

I don't know what you are trying to do with this thread, but I have not denied free will. I just don't know how it arises.

I'm exposing illogical thinking on the issue at hand.

Do you know how gravity arose? How about the strong nuclear force? Why then the special reticence on the observable phenomena of free will?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

We do this anyway. It's the introduction of mitigating circumstances. We already know that they have an effect. The same with a crime of passion. The same if someone charged is found to be mentally ill. Or has the IQ of a child. We already know, as a fact, that past conditions determine our actions.

Take that to the logical conclusion and you end up with people saying 'But it feels exactly like I have free will' and trying to sneak dualism in through the back door.

Somehow, your conclusion sounds asymmetrical in its application, Bradskii. Probably because it is asymmetrical in its application.

Being that there is this asymmetry present in your arguments, here's what I really think about all of this: I think Robert Sapolsky is attempting to play both sides of the semantic court. But that's not how games are supposed to be played......................................................................................

........................ I know, I know. How will 'Freedom From Religion' ever be achieved if we don't play both sides of the semantic court?

 

[Hans Blaster]

That is exactly what emegent properties are.

No.

I'm exposing illogical thinking on the issue at hand.

This is an odd way to do it.

Do you know how gravity arose? How about the strong nuclear force?

Gravity is the curvature of space-time. It is a pseudo force. The strong force is one of the fundamental forces. It might be unified with other forces (weak/em) as a single unified field, but a model for it hasn't been worked out yet. This is a

Why then the special reticence on the observable phenomena of free will?

Because it isn't one of the fundamental fields. So either define the field, or find the emergent nature.

 

[Hans Blaster]

........................ I know, I know. How will 'Freedom From Religion' ever be achieved if we don't play both sides of the semantic court?

What has "Freedom From Religion" got to do with this thread? (And why is it capitalized.)