Free Will

[SelfSim]

If we knew 'everything', we'd know the future outcome. That's not the same as it being predetermined or predictable. Also, quantum indeterminacy means that macro-scale determinism is an approximation.

'An approximation', as compared with what?

 

[SelfSim]

I hold a monadological view of mind. I see no evidence that matter can do the work of mind. Similarly, I see no evidence that mind can do the work of matter. Since monads are immaterial, they can't causally interact with a material body. What's accordingly at issue is a Leibnizian style harmonization or coordination between mind and matter.

Here's a short article where I use little calculus to argue against 0-level determinism. Dennett makes an appearance. Like the ancient Greeks, Dennett seems confused about the initially astonishing fact that an infinite series can have a finite sum.

That's gotta be a contender for the world's shortest paper .. ie: one Denet extract, and one equation where the terms aren't even explicitly defined anywhere in the paper(?)

But it is not up to us what went on before we were born, and neither is it up to us what the laws of nature are. Therefore the consequences of these things (including our present acts) are not up to us.

Ahh .. but there is abundant objective evidence supporting that the Laws of Nature were defined by many, many scientifically thinking human minds throughout history .. therefore the consequences of these things ARE up to us (scientifically thinking minds)!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Uniqueness,(of personality), I think, might be a distinguishing aspect of what people mean when they think of free will .. dunno .. just throwin' it out there ..(?) (Eg: 'She's a free-spirited individual')

People may make different decisions or choices in similar circumstances because they have different personalities, but that doesn't mean the decisions or choices are 'free' - rather, you could say that the different decisions or choices were determined (or at least strongly influenced) by their differing personalities.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

'An approximation', as compared with what?

An approximation to a completely deterministic universe; i.e. deterministic, for practical purposes, at macro scales, but indeterministic at quantum scales.

 

[SelfSim]

An approximation to a completely deterministic universe.

Ahh .. an approximation to a belief then?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Ahh .. an approximation to a belief then?

Not necessarily; it's an approximation to the idea (proposition or hypothesis) that the universe is deterministic (which some people believe). As Aristotle supposedly said, “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”

 

[SelfSim]

People may make different decisions or choices in similar circumstances because they have different personalities, but that doesn't mean the decisions or choices are 'free' - rather, you could say that the different decisions or choices were determined (or at least strongly influenced) by their differing personalities.

So we're following the idea of a possible relationship between uniqueness and 'free will' here .. and the observation is that personalities at some arbitrary scale(s), appear to be unique from amongst the set of all personalities. 'Free' there, to me, implies unattachment to, (or being unconstrained by), other concerns. I think that's pretty close to being equivalent to my version of 'uniqueness'.
You are however, envisaging 'free' as meaning almost the complete opposite of that .. Its interesting to see how what we mean there, is so radically different.

 

[SelfSim]

Not necessarily; it's an approximation to the idea (proposition or hypothesis) that the universe is deterministic (which some people believe). ...

Is that (underlined) proposition, objectively testable .. even in principle?
(This matters if the claim of 'approximation' is to be of practical use, I think?).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So we're following the idea of a possible relationship between uniqueness and 'free will' here .. and the observation is that personalities at some arbitrary scale(s), appear to be unique from amongst the set of all personalities. 'Free' there, to me, implies unattachment to, (or being unconstrained by), other concerns. I think that's pretty close to being equivalent to my version of 'uniqueness'.
You are however, envisaging 'free' as meaning almost the complete opposite of that .. Its interesting to see how what we mean there, is so radically different.

OK. As is often (usually?) the case, the definition of 'free will' is the root of the issue.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Is that (underlined) proposition, objectively testable .. even in principle?
(This matters if the claim of 'approximation' is to be of practical use, I think?).

It's not ultimately falsifiable - no matter how random something seems, you can't be sure that there isn't a deterministic explanation (for example, in Many Worlds quantum randomness is a selection effect).

It wasn't intended as more than a view of the current consensus that QM appears stochastic, but at macro-scales, the world behaves, for practical purposes, deterministically.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

There are two interrelated but different questions concerning free will: "What does it mean to have free will?" and "Do humans have it?"

In my view, the first question is not hard to answer. An intelligent agent exhibits free will when their thought controls some of their choices. The more deliberate and free of external intervention the controlling thought is, the freer the agent.

I suggest that thought, whether conscious or unconscious, controls all our choices; i.e. it's not a choice if thought is not involved. Perhaps we differ on what 'thought' is, or maybe what 'choice' is?

'Deliberate' and 'free of external intervention' need a bit more definition/clarification. By 'deliberate' do you mean reasoned? If so, why? if not, then what?

By 'free of external intervention' do you mean uncoerced or constrained? If so, I'd broadly agree, but what counts as coercion or constraint can get pretty fuzzy.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

One need not resort to statistical physics to find noncausal examples. Special relativity has two fundamental axioms: the invariance of physical laws relative to inertial frames and the velocity of light in a vacuum. These axioms are noncausal. One can derive the Lorentz transformation from these axioms. Hence the Lorentz contraction is noncausal.

AIUI, the Lorentz contraction isn't random, which was the relevant context here.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It does get fuzzy. Consider, for example, Locke's example of a man who doesn't know he's in a locked room but freely chooses not to leave the room. The man freely chooses to do what he must inevitably do.

I was thinking more in terms of social, cultural, or ideological differences, where what would require coercion in one culture may be freely undertaken in another (an extreme example might be cult activities). This raises questions such as, whether social pressure to conform constitutes coercion, and whether, when it becomes internalised and accepted as the norm, it remains coercive; i.e. can coercion be internal?

Anyway, I take a monadological view of mind. Since monads are immaterial, they can't causally interact with a material world. In my view, the mind answers to the principle of sufficient reason, not the principle of causality. Yet, due to a coordination of mind and matter, the mind is not unilaterally in control; rather, there are mutual adjustments.

OK.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Many folks connect causality and determinism. I'm not saying you can only get determinism via causality. Indeed, I don't know if there is such a thing as causality. I don't see that anything in physics implies causality. I'll let folks draw their own conclusions.

Perhaps if I'd used predictability in place of determinism it would have been clearer...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Perhaps. Concerning free will, Leibniz cut the Gordian knot. I don't accept Leibniz's entire system, but his philosophy of mind is outstanding.

I'm not familiar with his philosophy of mind, beyond the idea of monads, which seem to have rather an Aristotelean telos. But I'm taking a short course on the philosophy of mind in the new year, so if you can recommend something readable on Leibnitz's approach, that would be very useful.

 

[Ophiolite]

What do you mean by 'free will'?

As my later posts in the thread sought to demonstrate I have little or no idea what free will is, or might be; I see no clear means of detecting its existence, or non-existence, for any such definitions of it I have seen; I am confident discerning anything definitive on it is well above my paygrade; I suspect (all hail Dunning-Kruger) that it may be above the paygrade of all of humanity.
This does not mean I think we should stop exploring the concept, for it is likely an important one. It's just I expect no meaningful answer till after my unborn great grand children are long dead.

 

[SelfSim]

I'm not familiar with his philosophy of mind, beyond the idea of monads, which seem to have rather an Aristotelean telos. But I'm taking a short course on the philosophy of mind in the new year, so if you can recommend something readable on Leibnitz's approach, that would be very useful.

Oh no! Don't do it! 'Twill only lead to practical uselessness and excessive indulgence in verbose word-salads!

 

[SelfSim]

Leibniz is among the clearest minds. He discovered calculus, Boolean algebra (before Boole), topology (in my opinion), and a lot more. He’s worth studying.

Or were you referring to something else?

Any philosophy of 'mind' I've seen, is typically made up concoctions of thought experiments, conducted by the very mind it seeks to 'discover' truths about. Philosophers almost always use the process which relies solely on assumed 'true' posits. They are always trying to discover the 'true' meanings of their own words too, (conveniently ignoring the evidence that words can acquire whatever meanings we choose to assign them in different contexts). Knowledge also somehow appears to end up being some kind of weird 'justified true belief' (whatever practical use that term is supposed to have beyond just their own personal musings).

Overall; I find 'thick' philosophy topics thoroughly unsatisfying in terms of making practical differences in the world the rest of us all live in .. over intellectualisation, it is .. (IMO).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

As my later posts in the thread sought to demonstrate I have little or no idea what free will is, or might be; I see no clear means of detecting its existence, or non-existence, for any such definitions of it I have seen; I am confident discerning anything definitive on it is well above my paygrade; I suspect (all hail Dunning-Kruger) that it may be above the paygrade of all of humanity.
This does not mean I think we should stop exploring the concept, for it is likely an important one. It's just I expect no meaningful answer till after my unborn great grand children are long dead.

Thanks - a post of honesty and clarity. For me it's a feeling we have as a result of being agents without knowledge of the details of our agency; we rationalise it in various ways.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I regard Leibniz as a Platonist. Gödel is Leibniz's greatest disciple. Although I'm a Roman Catholic, my issue with Aquinas (an excellent philosopher) is that he spent too much time trying to baptize Aristotle. I never did care for Aristotelianism.

As for references, Nicholas Rescher is the leading Leibniz scholar. Indeed, he's probably the greatest living philosopher. At least, I can't think of anyone else who compares to Rescher. Rescher happens to be Roman Catholic, which I naturally find pleasing.

I'm working on a book that develops a Leibnizian philosophy of mind, but I'm not sure when I'll finish it. My paper Gödel's God Theorem is Leibnizian, though it deals with a different subject. For example, chapter four augments Leibniz's argument from eternal truths via incompleteness and diagonalization.

OK, thanks.