Free Will

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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

Philosophers - ask questions like children and answer them like lawyers...

I agree that philosophy typically doesn't provide answers, only more questions, but it is indirectly useful in giving a wider appreciation of different viewpoints and the thinking behind them, and for learning critical thinking. I try to avoid the more obscure work by reading summaries - the more different the interpretations, the less time I spend on them. ISTM a good philosopher should be able to express themselves reasonably clearly and concisely (as in, if you can't explain it to your gran - or, at least, an undergraduate). It may not always be true, but if they're not understood, what's the point?

 

[SelfSim]

Science has no fixed ontology. By contrast, the truths of mathematics are eternal.

Any 'truths of mathematics' will only last for as long as humans are around.
Same goes for what 'eternal' means.
(Unless one just believes in human independent truths, of course. There's a plenty big pile of other such beliefs and truths waiting over in there in the corner, to toss those ones upon).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Science has no fixed ontology. By contrast, the truths of mathematics are eternal.

The truths of mathematics are eternal because they're tautologically true, i.e. true by definition, given the axioms. Mathematical equations are explicitly about saying the same thing in different ways.

 

[SelfSim]

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on that point. Gödel's incompleteness theorems imply mathematical Platonism. In other words, the truths of mathematics are not the result of formal games; they inhere in a larger objective reality that the human mind does not determine.

And exactly how did you determine the existence of this 'larger objective reality' without using a human mind? Please cite your mind independent objective test for demonstrating that claim. (I predict you'll fail miserably).

Subjective mathematics (our axiomatic theories) can't exhaust objective mathematics. For more, see my argument from eternal truths.

Until you can cite the above requested objective test, I am highly confident that your distinction between 'subjective' and 'objective' there, is based on a belief in the mind independent existence of what you're calling 'objective' .. and so I don't really have to read your argument. (Nonetheless, I'll still have a look at it when I get the chance .. please provide link).

 

[SelfSim]

No one fully understands the distinction between mind and matter -- between concepts and "objects out there." However, in both domains, one encounters facts beyond one's control. For example, the incompleteness/diagonalization results are solid facts despite being conceptual.

Sounds like you're conflating philosophically based, logical axiomatic terminologies with objective operational definitions.
'Facts' doesn't ever really appear in science, because all of science's Laws, operational definitions, theories, etc, are are contextual and subject to change with further test data. Absolutes aren't what science produces. 'Facts' tends to be what philosophers think science is up to, but that's just because they're rarely ever thinking scientifically.

Oh .. and any concept of the mind, once described, becomes either a testable, or untestable, model. Science deals in the testable ones .. that's generally how concepts become 'objects'. There is nothing mind independent about science's objects .. or objectivity.

Are you suggesting that "idea x is known to a mind" implies "x can't be objective"? Or, even worse, do you say "x is an idea" implies "necessarily x can't imply anything objective"?

E.g., the infinitude of primes is a solid, objective fact, and its conceptual status takes nothing from its objectivity. If you want to see why incompleteness/diagonalization implies an objective mathematical reality, see chapter four of my paper GGT.

Objectivity is defined by the method used in concluding the existence of 'an object'.
The only other known way, is based on beliefs.

The usual distinctions of 'objective' over 'subjective', (usually taken from dictionary definitions), were always arbitrarily assigned by human thinking minds. (There's abundant objective evidence supporting this).

 

[Halbhh]

I am going to spin this off as another thread, because this topic might have a mind of its own.


Regarding free will, it is molecules that do the thinking. Since those molecules together make up a person, Daniel Dennet says that we, that is, the physical collection of matter that makes up our brains, choose to do things and are free to do what "we" want. Sam Harris, for instance, would not call that free will. But I think both are essentially saying the same thing: Molecules form our brains, and that mind that comes as a result of that mass of matter between our ears is free to do what it chooses. Whether we should call that free will is a question of semantics.

Regardless, our molecules are running the show. They create the illusion after the fact that there is a consciousness in charge. But that consciousness actually occurs a split second after the fact, so that consciousness is not in charge.

None of that removes responsibility. I am still the same me, regardless of whether I am made up of atom-stuff, consciousness-stuff, or soul-stuff. Either way, if that stuff inside me were to choose to act in unacceptable ways, then the resulting me would need to take responsibility for that decision.

Do other animals have free will? Ask my dog. It is clear to me that he had a mind of his own and choose to do what he wanted to do when he wanted to.

Yes, dogs definitely have some free will, to varying degrees. They can learn to literally not eat a delicious treat they love and eagerly are awaiting that be being set right at their paws until given the signal (! hard to believe until you see it...). They have the ability to make some choice, as they don't always choose the same choice, and some days get sorta creative, if you watch closely, on other parameters, like how they can influence you.

 

[SelfSim]

The distinction between subjective mathematics and objective mathematics doesn't come from a dictionary; it comes from mathematical theorems. Incompleteness, large cardinals, and undecidability are at issue -- among other things.

You rightly point out that science has no fixed ontology. By contrast, the truths of mathematics are eternal. Mathematics is not science, though it may share some features with science.

Last time I checked, 'eternal' necessarily implies time. Time is well defined in science .. not so in mathematics. There is no theorem (or axioms) of time in mathematics.

Math is a type of formalised logic. Logic also cannot establish truth, pure and simple. Instead, what logic does, is derive the logical equivalences between a set of claims on truth, called axioms, postulates, and definitions, and a set of theorems that are regarded as equivalent to that original set. We can then say that the theorems inherit the truth value of the axioms, postulates, and definitions.

Science uses evidence to establish a kind of 'truth', because science has no idea what is the truth value of any given set of axioms, postulates, and definitions, other than by the application of evidence. Indeed, the problem is much worse than that, because there usually isn't even a truth value of those things, in the mathematical sense, instead there is a concept of usefulness that is both contextual and provisional.

Science doesn't deal exclusively with testable statements, though science textbooks might say things like that. But I'll let that pass. My concern isn't with science.

Nonetheless, its important to maintain clarity on what distinguishes math from science.
Claims about 'truths' in math being 'eternal', obscures the method being used in arriving at such a claim.

 

[Chriliman]

And exactly how did you determine the existence of this 'larger objective reality' without using a human mind? Please cite your mind independent objective test for demonstrating that claim. (I predict you'll fail miserably).

Either a ‘larger objective reality’ exists and is what accounts for how our minds came to be or an eternal mind exists and accounts for how our minds came to be. If you have a third option(maybe your mind is all there is?), I’m all ears

 

[SelfSim]

Either a ‘larger objective reality’ exists and is what accounts for how our minds came to be or an eternal mind exists and accounts for how our minds came to be. If you have a third option(maybe your mind is all there is?), I’m all ears

Our minds demonstrably assign the meanings of the words you use, (and that becomes all important when it comes to the meaning of 'what objective reality is', (regardless of whether bigger or smaller ones 'exist'). This is an (abundantly) objectively evidenced based conclusion. It is not some sort of believed-in assumption, simply held as being 'true' for the purpose of conducting a thoroughly useless thought experiment.

There is exactly zip objective evidence for, (or even an objective test for), a truly mind independent reality. In fact that notion is demonstrably, at best, a completely non-sensical notion, or just yet another belief.

How our minds 'came to be', is well described by the ToE.

 

[Chriliman]

Our minds demonstrably assign the meanings of the words you use, (and that becomes all important when it comes to the meaning of 'what objective reality is', (regardless of whether bigger or smaller ones 'exist'). This is an (abundantly) objectively evidenced based conclusion. It is not some sort of believed-in assumption, simply held as being 'true' for the purpose of conducting a thoroughly useless thought experiment.

There is exactly zip objective evidence for, (or even an objective test for), a truly mind independent reality. In fact that notion is demonstrably, at best, a completely non-sensical notion, or just yet another belief.

How our minds 'came to be', is well described by the ToE.

I agree, but the ToE depends on the assumption of a mind independent reality for the process of the ToE to take place in, apart from our minds.

 

[Chriliman]

It's an objective fact that there are infinitely many primes.

I might push back on this statement a bit and say we can’t actually know this fact without spending an infinite amount of time counting the infinite primes. So it’s more of an assumed fact(if that’s a thing) based on our very finite knowledge of the infinite.

 

[SelfSim]

Thanks for the comment. I think one can know with certainty that there are infinitely many primes because, as Euclid proved, the assumption that there are finitely many primes leads to a contradiction. Hence one need not observe all primes to know the set of primes is infinite. Mathematics has many examples of existence proofs, where there is no example of the object known to exist.

And here, youcircle back to the so-called (philosophically believed-in) 'Laws of Thought'.

Bertrand Russell distilled them as:

i) The law of identity: 'Whatever is, is.'
ii) The law of non-contradiction (alternately the 'law of contradiction'): 'Nothing can both be and not be.'
iii) The law of excluded middle: 'Everything must either be or not be.'

Arguably the very basis of logic .. and inherited by/formalised in mathematics (perhaps as axioms) but they rely on some undefined meaning for existence, (ie: 'is').
Science tests in order to conclude existence .. not so in math, or logic where it is merely an 'assumed truth'.

More often than not, my comments are coming from the scientific (objective testing) perspective .. I mean after all, we are in a physical sciences forum .. not a philosophy or mathematics one.

 

[SelfSim]

I see what you're saying. I'm not saying I agree. I want to determine what it has to do with my position -- if anything.

There are a few points of confusion. Words are not the fundamental issue in mathematics. If one could do mathematics with words, no one would bother with notation. Notation is accidental; it's part of subjective mathematics, and the theories mathematicians create. By contrast, the underlying concepts are objective and could be discovered and represented differently. But regardless of the words/notation one uses, one doesn't get to decide there are finitely many primes. It's an objective fact that there are infinitely many primes.

I'd be more inclined to call it a stubbornly persistent perception for humans .. which is how objective also acquires its meaning.

I never did argue that "objective" means "mind-independent." Indeed, I made remarks to the contrary. I don't know why that's a concern here. If you read GGT, I place the truths of mathematics in the intellect of God -- so they are not, in my view, mind-independent, though they are objective.

Whereas I'd go where the objective evidence leads .. ie: the truths of mathematics are assigned their meaning by the human mind (or human intellect). I mean, the statement 'God exists independently from our minds' is also true, isn't it?

 

[SelfSim]

I agree, but the ToE depends on the assumption of a mind independent reality for the process of the ToE to take place in, apart from our minds.

The ToE is a scientifically (objectively) evidenced theory. Given that science never directly tests 'the thing itself', (models are tested in science), the ToE is, in no way, dependent on a truly, mind independent reality. It takes a mind to conceive such a thing in the first place, which is a direct contradiction of what mind independent means.
The only remaining alternative then, is that the mind independent reality you refer to there, is nothing more than a belief, perhaps conceived for the sake of expediency and convenience .. but its still a belief.

Oh, and science does not rely on believed-in untestable, (or even untested), assumptions. There is no part of the fundamental method (textbook, widely taught, etc) which says that. Science couldn't work that way .. if it did, it would cease being science and be about something completely different.

 

[SelfSim]

That's wrong. Mathematics isn't logic, but logic is mathematics. E.g., propositional logic is Boolean algebra, and there's an equivalence to solving multivariable polynomials in mod 2. Moreover, for predicate logic, cylindric and polyadic algebras are now well-known; and there are connections with topology.

Moreover, Gödel's incompleteness theorems prove math isn't logic.

Its not wrong from the viewpoint of how science makes logic and mathematics practically useful .. (which is science's purpose).

 

[Bradskii]

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.

Would that agent make exactly the same choice if the situations was exactly replicated?

If so, then that would seem to rule out free will as she was constrained by the situation. If not, then what caused her to change her mind?

 

[public hermit]

Would that agent make exactly the same choice if the situations was exactly replicated?

If so, then that would seem to rule out free will as she was constrained by the situation. If not, then what caused her to change her mind?

If the situation were exactly the same, including her train of thought, and yet she did differently, then her choice was arbitrary, which is also not free.

As A.J. Ayer argued, her choice can only be free if it is determined by the causal chain, which includes her train of thought, that led to her choice.

 

[Bradskii]

If the situation were exactly the same, including her train of thought, and yet she did differently, then her choice was arbitrary, which is also not free.

Exactly as I see it.

As A.J. Ayer argued, her choice can only be free if it is determined by the causal chain, which includes her train of thought, that led to her choice.

I'm not sure that it makes any sense to say that a causal chain, which by definition led to her choice (and would lead to no other), makes it a free will choice.

 

[Neogaia777]

If the situation were exactly the same, including her train of thought, and yet she did differently, then her choice was arbitrary, which is also not free.

As A.J. Ayer argued, her choice can only be free if it is determined by the causal chain, which includes her train of thought, that led to her choice.

Wouldn't that be the other way around...?

Only in the first example, we are positing that if the exact same conditions were replicated exactly, and I do mean "exactly", etc, then he or she (or you or me) cannot, and does not, ever choose any differently, etc, and is therefore not ever "free"...

And this also means that nothing that is here is truly free, and everything only ever just goes, in only just one way only, or only in a straight line only, etc, and any other possibilities that you, or me, or anyone or anything (else), thinks it has, etc, is all just merely an illusion, etc, or is only the greatest vanity, etc, because what you/me/they will chose from among them, has already been chosen for you/me/we/us already, and is already chosen for us already by "not one single thing at all having to do with us" ever at all really, etc, at least not while in this world/creation/reality/universe anyway, etc...

God Bless!

 

[public hermit]

Exactly as I see it.

I'm not sure that it makes any sense to say that a causal chain, which by definition led to her choice (and would lead to no other), makes it a free will choice.

Ayer argues, and I agree, the fact that a causal chain, which includes the deliberative process that leads to her choice, although it determines her choice in the sense that it is the only causal chain, that is not the same as her being constrained against her will. It is simply the context, albeit the only one, in which her will is realized. What gives her agency is that the causal process includes what she wanted in that process. Now if she had wanted otherwise and was constrained against her will, that would be different, but only in the sense that she did not act according to her "rathers." But under the normal flow of causal events, she chooses what she wants and that is freedom enough lol.

To me, the distinction is simple: freedom is either 1) we could have done otherwise or 2) we do what we want. If freedom is the ability to do otherwise, then I don't know what that means, and there is no way to show that is the case. What I do understand is the ability to do what I want or to be constrained to do otherwise. The second possibility also entails enough for responsibility. Even if I am determined, the fact that I wanted it, and acted in accord with that desire, is enough for praise or blame, i.e. responsibility. But, of course, if I change my mind before the final decision, it simply means that I wanted it for better or worse lol.