Determinism vs. Freewill

[Tormod]

A very good post, Aquagem. Thank you for casting some light upon this issue.

[lindagarrette]

This is what I mean with "unscientific". Linda, you keep saying (over and over) that determinism is a fact of nature. You say noone can contradict it. When someone tries, you (and Freethinker) ridicules the attempts by saying "but this is not so".

Tormod, where in this forum has anyone tried to show that the universe is not deterministic? I don't redicule anyone. I have respect for everyone. Please refrain from acusing me unfairly of unkind acts.

 

I do not accept that determinism is a reality, or, if I can restate that: I believe that there is such a thing as free will. I do not think that all our actions are voluntary or conscious (in fact, I think most are not), but I believe in the individual's ability to make conscious decisions based on three things: empirical experience, gut feeling (ie, guesswork), and chance (luck).

It is your prerogative to believe whatever you wish. I perceive your attachment to the concept of free will is more philosophical than scientific.

 

Yet I understand the scientific method. So either you're calling me ignorant (which may well be the truth) or you fail to see that you provide nothing yourself but statements and phrases like this one:

You are taking my statement personally. Again, I respect everyone and everyone's opinion. There is no offensive intention or implication by my asking if you understand the scientific method. Many of the brightest people I know say they do but when it comes down to it, can't actually apply it to their theories.

 

For example, if you hypothesize the existance of free will, then you should be willing to look at the alternative (causal determinism) objectively and state why it is not true. There has been no attempt by anyone in this forum to explain an instance of any uncaused event. That's why I keep asking. There are a lot of instances of events for which the cause is not yet known and may never be known because we don't have perfect knowledge of all variables in the univers. That doesnt mean there is no scientific explanation. It means that some people explain the unknown in metaphysical terms such as the "mind" and "free will."

 

This brings the discussion completely off track. If it is just I who do not see that, please explain how something can exist but not in the physical world, and how a metaphysical concept manifests itself so we can see it (or even sense it) in the physical world.

Why do you say it is off track to say the abstract exists. Many concepts exist that we discuss regularly, mostly emotions and beliefs. I don't understand what you are trying to ask for as an explanation for how we can see something metaphysical. I don't have any belief in anything metaphysical so if I did see something of that sort, it would be in my imagination.

 

To me, a statement like that is nothing but a variant of "there is a god, but we will never be able to prove his existence". Or better yet - since we cannot prove free will then the opposite must be true.

The scientific method doesn't require absolute proof. It does require substantial evidence to support conclusions. Any exception would be enough to show that a given hypothesis is not true.

 

You obviously think I am way off track with my views, so I would very much appreciate being told where I go wrong, and why.

What I think about your views is not relevant. For your information, though, my opinion is that you have not thought the matter through carefully. Your responses so far have been non-specificc and defensive. You say you believe in free will. Belief in something does not make it fact. Facts are intersubjectively verifyable. Philosophical notions are not.

 

By the way, my angry avatar is there to make the point that I was and am distressed when falsely accused.

[Tormod]

Linda, that is a very good post and has provided lots of food for thought. Thank you.

 

I still think that

If you understand the scientific method, then you already get it.

is a silly and needlessly generalized statement, but I do agree that we do not have to agree.

 

I also accept that you have given the matter much more thought than I have, and therefore I tend to jump into the discussion from the angle of the devil's advocate and look for fallible arguments.

 

You say you believe in free will. Belief in something does not make it fact.

 

No, and I never claimed it did. I also did not say that I have proof that free will exists, but I have yet to see proof of anything else. I also don't think the future is entirely laid out on a cosmic scale - there is randomness, structured chaos, and obvious cause-effect situations. But I'll hold my gab right now and do some research before I delve deeper into this, okay?

[lindagarrette]

Linda -- I've been reading Dennett's writing on evolution, and find him a cogent and accessible critic of many ideas that we've had for centuries that now call for review. Can you give me a reference -- book title? -- on this subject?

Here is a recent paper by Dennett.

Abstract: The powerful illusion of a unified, Cartesian self, responsible for intentional action is contrasted with the biologically sounder model of competitive processes that yield an only partially coherent agency, and the existence of the illusion of self is explained as an evolved feature of communicating agents, capable of responding to requests and queries about their own decisions and actions.

 

The Self as a Responding—and Responsible—Artifact DANIEL C. DENNETT Center for Cognitive Studies, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts 02155, USA

 

Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1001: 39–50 (2003). doi: 10.1196/annals.1279.003

Copyright © 2003 by the New York Academy of Sciences

 

 

and a less auspicious source:

 

Rita Carter is a medical writer, contributing to, among others, the Independent, New Scientist, Daily Mail and Telegraph. She was twice awarded the Medical Journalists' Association prize for outstanding contribution to medical journalism.

 

Consciousness by Rita Carter

 

With contributions from:

Igor Aleksander, Susan J. Blackmore, David Chalmers, Daniel C. Dennett, Andrew Duggins, Chris Frith, Jeffrey Gray, Stuart Hameroff, Nicholas Humphrey, J. Kevin O'Regan, Jaak Panksepp, David Rosenthal, Alwyn Scott, John Searle, John Skoyles

 

Rita Carter ponders the nature, origins, and purpose of consciousness in this fascinating inquiry into the toughest problem facing modern science and philosophy. Building on the foundation of her bestselling book Mapping the Mind, she considers whether consciousness is merely an illusion, a by-product of our brain's workings, some as yet inexplicable feature or property of the material universe or--as the latest physics may suggest--the very fundament of reality. Little, she discovers, is as it first seems.

 

Carter draws from a solid body of knowledge--empirical findings and theoretical hypotheses--about consciousness, much of it derived from recent discoveries about the brain. Her lively, accessible narrative ranges widely over new ways of thinking about the subject and what direction new research is taking. Leading scholars from a range of perspectives provide topical essays that complement Carter's account.

 

“Freewill is an illusion. The reason it is so utterly convincing is that the illusion - like the illusion that the objects around us are solid, or have some integral color - is deeply wired into the brain as a set of mechanisms which automatically create the sense of self/ subjectivity and agency that makes it feel as though we decide what our acts will be rather than merely respond to stimuli. There is evidence to show that this is the case: e.g. Libet's famous experiment showing that the brain begins an action before consciousness of it emerges. Neuroscience is also unravelling the mechanism of self and agency and these are now charted well enough for them to be copied in AI systems.”

[Freethinker]

Would it even be possible to prove that we had free will? In order to prove it, we would need to have evidence that we can make different choices in any given situation, but since, at any given time, we can only make one choice, we can never prove it, so there couldn't be any evidence for free will.

I think this is one of those issues where it would be possible to prove it if something specific happened. But lacking that happening, you can not prove we do not have it.

 

Sounds familier. Lacking specific results that would show that something exists, we assume it does anyway.

 

But one proof that would show Free Will would be if someone performed a completely unknown action. If we have total and complete free will, we would not be restricted to actions that are based on previous experience/ hardwiring. A truly unique arbitrary event. Even take Einstein, he "merely" developed an approach based on exposure to other already existing ideas. Mixing existing insights in new ways. Developing not a completely new idea, just a different approach. In fact his success was in finding existing elements to use as examples. Rubber sheet curvature for gravity.

 

So if someone performed a truly unique, totally arbitrary action, but would we recognize it as such? How would we measure it?

[Tormod]

Even take Einstein, he "merely" developed an approach based on exposure to other already existing ideas. Mixing existing insights in new ways. Developing not a completely new idea, just a different approach. In fact his success was in finding existing elements to use as examples. Rubber sheet curvature for gravity.

This is in fact called "creativity".

[Aquagem]

Abstract: The powerful illusion of a unified, Cartesian self, responsible for intentional action is contrasted with the biologically sounder model of competitive processes that yield an only partially coherent agency, and the existence of the illusion of self is explained as an evolved feature of communicating agents, capable of responding to requests and queries about their own decisions and actions.

 

Rita Carter is a medical writer, contributing to, among others, the Independent, New Scientist, Daily Mail and Telegraph. She was twice awarded the Medical Journalists' Association prize for outstanding contribution to medical journalism.

 

Consciousness by Rita Carter

Thanks, Linda. Consciousness is so much a part of human life (and, I think, that of at least some other animals) that it seems silly to regard it a merely an epiphenomenon of brain activity without a significant role in survival and reproduction. I will read Dennett's article, and Carter's contributor list is a star-studded cast of neuroscience researchers. Dennett has also written a book dealing with the same subject, Consciousness Explained. I haven't gotten to that yet.

 

Are you familiar with George Lakoff and Mark Johnson's Philosophy in the Flesh ? I think of it whenever I see references to the "Cartesian self", because they go to great lengths to show how modern neuroscience demolishes the idea. It appears to be one of our "cherished illusions" (my term), ideas that are firmly embedded in our day-to-day lives that turn out to be demonstrably wrong, but that people cling to against all evidence. These are the ideas science has had its greatest impact in debunking, but also why there is a general reaction against science in the West. Don't wanna hear it. Don't say it. Don't teach it.

 

It seems to me that doing "book reports" for Hypography would be a most useful addition to the site. If we could write even short synopses of some of these works, it would be a great mind expansion for those without the time to read a deep and complex book.

[Freethinker]

No, and I never claimed it did. I also did not say that I have proof that free will exists, but I have yet to see proof of anything else.

OH NO! Tormod falling into "Shifting the Burden of Proof"!

 

Shifting the burden of proof

 

The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.

 

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting

[Freethinker]

I also don't think the future is entirely laid out on a cosmic scale - there is randomness, structured chaos, and obvious cause-effect situations.

Yes, good question. Though it is not framed as one? Is there a difference between determinism based on complete predetermined end results or just a mechanistic process which while affected by "structured chaos" and "uncertainty", the results can not be changed?

[Freethinker]

This is in fact called "creativity".

Yes but it is only the "creative" reassembling of existing concepts. It is not "creating" new concepts from scratch.

[Tormod]

OH NO! Tormod falling into "Shifting the Burden of Proof"!

:)

 

Actually, it was an attempt of ping-pong but you caught me at it.

[Tormod]

Yes but it is only the "creative" reassembling of existing concepts. It is not "creating" new concepts from scratch.

Well...I think that is stretching it a bit. Granted, great thinkers stand of the "shoulders of giants", but creativity is a process which creates new ideas from old ones.

 

I like to think of idea-making just like elements. Each element contains the exact same things (protons, electrons, neutrons etc) yet each and every one of them is unique.

 

Ideas are the same - I take two well known concepts and fuse them into a new one, and there is a new concept. It would not exists without the combination of a) the ideas, :) my awareness of them, and c) my applied creativity.

 

Not trying to be obnoxious here - I really think creativity is the driving force of all life, but consciousness and creativity combined is what I think is required for there to be free will.

[Freethinker]

:)

 

Actually, it was an attempt of ping-pong but you caught me at it.

Well stop it!

[Freethinker]

:)

 

Actually, it was an attempt of ping-pong but you caught me at it.

You've already got me by over 100 posts!

[Freethinker]

:)

 

Actually, it was an attempt of ping-pong but you caught me at it.

103 actually.

[Tormod]

You've already got me by over 100 posts!

:)

[Freethinker]

103 actually.

Er make that 102? :-)