The Free Will Thread

Lithose · May 20, 2016

chaos_sl said:
Reality exists, but we don't see it. We perceive it through our meat sensors. If you plugged me into the matrix, I didn't make choices anymore than I did in real life. I reacted to stimuli via a process that no one can comprehend, based on factors I'm not even aware of. That's not relativity.

You don't know reality exists, though. As you said, it is just a perception through your meat sensors. If your meat sensors tell you the matrix exists, it is as real as reality--as you said, the choices are the same. However, to an outside observer, your actions have stopped--the concept of your cognition is thus relative.

Cognition is an abstract we find useful to help us think about things. You, however, are not distinct, you are an organism, your choices are still 'free will', but there was not a 'fundamental you' sitting in your brain piloting it. It was a neural network acting in chorus based on information (One of the streams of information was your own conscious voice extrapolating things you did, which as said, is the feedback loop consciousness creates).

A lot of these questions are more about the perception of reality, and being 'assigned' the semantic of 'free will' in order to get people to think. But free will just the ability to makedifferentdecisions. (As opposed to reacting reflexively).

Jive Turkey · May 20, 2016

Lithose_sl said:
Except I don't take that an absence of free will, because I have never seen myself as different from the 'organism' which survives and attempts to pass on its genes. The choices I make have always been 'that organisms'.

So an amoeba has free will?

I mean, I think we probably agree on a base level on certain concepts here, but your definition of free will seems out of step to what the majority of people would say it is

Lithose · May 20, 2016

Jive Turkey_sl said:
So an amoeba has free will?

I mean, I think we probably agree on a base level on certain concepts here, but your definition of free will seems out of step to what the majority of people would say it is

No, an amoeba is acting reflexively. For free will, for me, requires something outside of reflex. I know the argument is that what we view as non-reflexive is merely our ignorance to the complexity of the chemical/signals which make up the action, which fair enough, that may be the case one day we can show that. (And I admit that could be a possibility)

But given the level of abstraction some species can achieve? I don't think that's the case. And that, for me, is what free will is; the ability to react to stimuli innovelways by formulating more choices. (Many species have it)

My concept probably does, yeah. But most people believe they are a function separate from themselves, too. It's a nice way to think about things, but it's clearly not true.

chaos · May 20, 2016

Lithose_sl said:
You don't know reality exists, though. As you said, it is just a perception through your meat sensors. If your meat sensors tell you the matrix exists, it is as real as reality--as you said, the choices are the same. However, to an outside observer, your actions have stopped--the concept of your cognition is thus relative.

Cognition is an abstract we find useful to help us think about things. You, however, are not distinct, you are an organism, your choices are still 'free will', but there was not a 'fundamental you' sitting in your brain piloting it. It was a neural network acting in chorus based on information (One of the streams of information was your own conscious voice extrapolating things you did, which as said, is the feedback loop consciousness creates).

A lot of these questions are more about the perception of reality, and being 'assigned' the semantic of 'free will' in order to get people to think. But free will just the ability to makedifferentdecisions. (As opposed to reacting reflexively).

Yeah, I don't know, I just assume because I perceivesomething. Perception of something would indicate that something exists, that something being reality, but hey maybe not.

But that's kind of what I was saying earlier. There is no "you". The self is entirely illusory, we are meat that processes input. That processing is not free will, not really. Just having the ability to make a choice isn't free will, in that case I could write you an AI in java in about 2 minutes. Those choices are driven by elements outside of "our" control, outside of things we even understand or possibly even know exist. It is just as much an illusion as the self is.

Sentagur · May 20, 2016

Lithose_sl said:
No, an amoeba is acting reflexively. For free will, for me, requires something outside of reflex. I know the argument is that what we view as non-reflexive is merely our ignorance to the complexity of the chemical/signals which make up the action, which fair enough, that may be the case one day we can show that. (And I admit that could be a possibility)

But given the level of abstraction some species can achieve? I don't think that's the case. And that, for me, is what free will is; the ability to react to stimuli innovelways by formulating more choices. (Many species have it)

My concept probably does, yeah. But most people believe they are a function separate from themselves, too. It's a nice way to think about things, but it's clearly not true.

Just because we as a species are Self aware, able to extrapolate from incomplete data and model scenarios and their possible consequences does not make us have free will. We have no control of what scenarios pop up in our head, we also have no control if the outcomes are correctly modeled or even in the ballpark and we don't have any clue how we chose one scenario over another with similar results to inform our actions.

According to Harris a decision pops into our head, and then the brain does a post hoc justification for that decision.

pharmakos · May 21, 2016

Dr. Mario Speedwagon_sl said:
Of course free will exists. What's all this arguing about? Look it's right here.

If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice mother fuckerssssaaaaa

Sentagur_sl said:
Free will is supposed to be unconstrained by outside stimuli or the current brain state. At least that is what i see as definition of free will.

Limited. Free. Will. Free will to the extent that our biological processes allow. It's the only form of free will that jives with science and it makes a lot of sense. Not sure why so many people are thinking of this in a black and white sense instead of a grey one.

pharmakos · May 21, 2016

Fuck I suck at not double posting.

Lithose · May 21, 2016

Sentagur_sl said:
Just because we as a species are Self aware, able to extrapolate from incomplete data and model scenarios and their possible consequences does not make us have free will. We have no control of what scenarios pop up in our head, we also have no control if the outcomes are correctly modeled or even in the ballpark and we don't have any clue how we chose one scenario over another with similar results to inform our actions.

According to Harris a decision pops into our head, and then the brain does a post hoc justification for that decision.

Yeah, Harris (Read some of the book on the train) is arguing from the general perspective that we all view ourselves through some ethereal 'consciousness' in your head (Conscious observer) vs your brain. My opinion on this is that it is a non-existent distinction (Which I think is the point Harris is making about post-hoc justification, or he tries to slam it and bury it in his dismissal of compatablism). I look at free will as organisms being able to expand on choices in a novel way (From an outside observer). For me, the distinction of 'you' vs 'your brain' does not exist, except as a misunderstanding of perception. Just like how we distinguish time from space, even though it is a non-existent distinction.

The consciousness in you is merely an abstract of your brain; as Harris says, it is a post-hoc abstract of your brain, but it also exists as linked to that very brain. They are not, on a fundamental level, different. You only perceive them to be--which is why this judgement of 'free will' from that perspective (As if we are 'drivers' and our brain in some kind of cockpit') is disconcerting or really changes some fundamental believes we have about choice. In reality, free will is merely the ability for an organism to develop novel choices (And goals) and pursue them. Your brain does this, you are your brain, thus you have free will. The distinction of 'you' beyond the whole of your brain, for me, is meaningless. That is the disconnect.

Jive's heart example is a decent one to challenge this (Harris uses it too, like we don't feel responsible for heart disease, so why feel responsible for changes in brain chemistry caused by child hood beatings?), but the reason I disagree with it is because your brain states clearly have an effect on your consciousness, the two are linked. The 'conscious observer' is just a reflection of the higher abstract functions in your brain, and unlike controlling things that were only ever meant to function in one way--this area of the brain can be changed by stimuli, it's plastic, and since the brain can also have an effect on which stimuli it takes in (Unlike the part that controls the heart), it can self determine (Again, unlike a part that is forced to be reflexive).

That's free will. Just because the mechanism isn't part of the conscious observer (Which to be fair, other studies havequestioned.) Doesn't mean the brain didn't self determine the methods by which it, and thus 'you' came up with choices. That's free will. He tries to dismiss this in part as 'compatablist' in the book? But I believe a compatablist believes your consciousness is still a separate entity, I really don't...it's just a reflection of the part of you that makes choices (In the end, I pretty much agree with Harris except based on what he defines as free will being tied to the observer being needed to be free will.).

Lithose · May 21, 2016

chaos_sl said:
But that's kind of what I was saying earlier. There is no "you". The self is entirely illusory, we are meat that processes input. That processing is not free will, not really. Just having the ability to make a choice isn't free will, in that case I could write you an AI in java in about 2 minutes. Those choices are driven by elements outside of "our" control, outside of things we even understand or possibly even know exist. It is just as much an illusion as the self is.

See, I think the process is free will--but as Jive said, my semantics behind it are probably different--so for the last few posts I've been talking past Jive and others (I admit) but I think we agree on a fundamental level, just not on a semantic level of what free will is. As an organism we make novel choices, we set novel goals even outside of reflexive actions. You say you could do this with an AI, but the AI can'tdevelopnovel choices (Even choices it's never seen or learned before, and were not instinctively passed down, IE not shared with other members of your species), your brain can. (I originally just said 'choice' I should have clarified better. Evolutionary AIs, I would say, are coming close to what I would consider it though, since they experiment, and then refine choices to attempt to deal with problems--since no one is controlling them, or adding the choices, they are using their own programming to create new novel choices? Yes. When they can set their own goals that would be free will to me. It's just not as intelligent in its implementation as a human brain.)

The big thing is as you said 'outside of our control'. Who is 'our'. Its making a distinction where there shouldn't be one, as you said, the 'illusion' of self. Like we are some being in a drivers seat within our brain, and the brain is the machine. (Ghost in the Shell). But we know diseases like tumors and depression can fundamental alter someone's thoughts and consciousness; those people can still make decisions and formulate novel choices, indicating that this whole perception that the 'self' is somehow different from the brain is just that--an illusion (Which Harris would say includes free will). But this is all premised off of the experiments which map when people thought they decided something vs when neural activity began for motor function. Indicating your 'brain' made the choice before 'you' did--but is your brain 'different' from you? Your consciousness is just a reflection of your brain (As said, we know consciousness changes with disease, so it changes when the brain is affected)..so the choices your brain makes, are you making choices. (Harris kind of dismisses this with people who are distressed by pathologies, indicating their brain is 'separate', but if being 'unable' to veto actions your brain wishes to take is an argument for free will, then in cases, like Nash, where pyschosis is resisted through will, is a case for free will.)

You are your brain. As I said above, Jive's organ (Heart or Gall Blader) example is a decent argument to this, in that your brain is sending stimulus with no way to alter it; in that case, I agree, its not free will. But the parts of your brain that deal with developing novel concepts do have it, and those parts are not really distinguishable from your consciousness, if those parts are affected by depression, your consciousness will change, a tumor, your consciousness will change--they are one in the same, your consciousness is mere an abstraction of those parts of you. And because those parts can make choices, that for me, is free will. The only 'gray' area here is when you attempt to materialize the illusion of 'self' beyond your brain (IE a soul.)..Which I think is what Harris is poking at.

Ukerric · May 21, 2016

Lithose_sl said:
That small list of cities your brain gave you to pick from? "it gave you'--is theimportantdistinction. Some process within that darkness of your brain made choices and selections from an obvious list of potential choices, and in different settings those selections might be different. It illustrates your brain can make choices. Your consciousness is a product of that same organization in your brain, and thus it is linked to 'you' in a fundamental way, 'you' can't be taken from your brain, and thus 'you' make choices.

If you prefer a simple analogy consider the consciousness as an expression of brain processes, and decision making as an expression of brain processes. The brain process is a wave, the decision making a through, the consciousness a crest. Is the crest making the through? No, they're both part of the wave itself. You only get into problems if you insist that only the crest matters.

Sentagur_sl said:
Free will is supposed to be unconstrained by outside stimuli or the current brain state. At least that is what i see as definition of free will.

Good. Then we can agree that free will does not exist.

Because if that free will exists, then it would mean prison doesn't work. If outside stimuli does not affect your decision making, then punishment wouldn't work well. And if it's not affect by current (or previous) brain states, then it is essentially random, and that means your body can't be held responsible and punished by what is essentially randomness.

chaos · May 21, 2016

Lithose_sl said:
See, I think the process is free will--but as Jive said, my semantics behind it are probably different--so for the last few posts I've been talking past Jive and others (I admit) but I think we agree on a fundamental level, just not on a semantic level of what free will is. As an organism we make novel choices, we set novel goals even outside of reflexive actions. You say you could do this with an AI, but the AI can'tdevelopnovel choices (Even choices it's never seen or learned before, and were not instinctively passed down, IE not shared with other members of your species), your brain can. (I originally just said 'choice' I should have clarified better. Evolutionary AIs, I would say, are coming close to what I would consider it though, since they experiment, and then refine choices to attempt to deal with problems--since no one is controlling them, or adding the choices, they are using their own programming to create new novel choices? Yes. When they can set their own goals that would be free will to me. It's just not as intelligent in its implementation as a human brain.)

The big thing is as you said 'outside of our control'. Who is 'our'. Its making a distinction where there shouldn't be one, as you said, the 'illusion' of self. Like we are some being in a drivers seat within our brain, and the brain is the machine. (Ghost in the Shell). But we know diseases like tumors and depression can fundamental alter someone's thoughts and consciousness; those people can still make decisions and formulate novel choices, indicating that this whole perception that the 'self' is somehow different from the brain is just that--an illusion (Which Harris would say includes free will). But this is all premised off of the experiments which map when people thought they decided something vs when neural activity began for motor function. Indicating your 'brain' made the choice before 'you' did--but is your brain 'different' from you? Your consciousness is just a reflection of your brain (As said, we know consciousness changes with disease, so it changes when the brain is affected)..so the choices your brain makes, are you making choices. (Harris kind of dismisses this with people who are distressed by pathologies, indicating their brain is 'separate', but if being 'unable' to veto actions your brain wishes to take is an argument for free will, then in cases, like Nash, where pyschosis is resisted through will, is a case for free will.)

You are your brain. As I said above, Jive's organ (Heart or Gall Blader) example is a decent argument to this, in that your brain is sending stimulus with no way to alter it; in that case, I agree, its not free will. But the parts of your brain that deal with developing novel concepts do have it, and those parts are not really distinguishable from your consciousness, if those parts are affected by depression, your consciousness will change, a tumor, your consciousness will change--they are one in the same, your consciousness is mere an abstraction of those parts of you. And because those parts can make choices, that for me, is free will. The only 'gray' area here is when you attempt to materialize the illusion of 'self' beyond your brain (IE a soul.)..Which I think is what Harris is poking at.

I agree on the semantics thing. Our stupid primate brains aren't well equipped to even think about this stuff, much less have the language to easily discuss it.

The fact that I can't write an AI that can actually develop those choices is the problem. My brain can. But I can't even fathom the process by which those choices are generated, much less control it. Choices just appear. When he does his free will experiment, I think of different cities, they just occur, there's no process there that I can manipulate to give the city I want.

When I think of "free will" as people describe it, I am thinking of the mind operating independently and freely. Within certain constraints, of course, but still independent. That isn't really what happens, things occur to us based on parameters invisible to our conscious mind. Those things can be manipulated in any manner of ways by outside observers. By things as complex as drug interactions or as simple as priming by showing you a certain color. That's not free will, that's just a process we don't yet understand.

Jive Turkey · May 21, 2016

Lithose, I think you might be a little liberal with your overlap of "consciousness" talk and "soul" talk. It is perfectly acceptable to talk about consciousness in a material, non-metaphysical way. Just because consciousness doesn't exist apart from the brain doesn't mean we can't speak of consciousness without the concept of a soul being attached to it. I can speak about the colour blue even though the physical manifestation of the colour blue is non-existent except for in our conscious experience. I can speak about sadness even though it's a seemingly ethereal abstraction existing only in our heads. So to say we can't differentiate between conscious experience and subconscious processes is a bit of a non-starter. Even though consciousness isn't a physical thing you can hold in your hand, it's still a thing that exists and it's measurable

Wingz · May 22, 2016

Putting this here because I don't know where else this should go. Seems like free will to me. Too bad they killed the lions for his dumb ass:

Naked man jumps into a zoo's LION enclosure in desperate 'suicide bid' and survives

Malakriss · May 23, 2016

Witness reported he shouted religious statements as he was mauled.

"He was screaming religious things."

No, that seems like typical religious brainwashing that doesn't help an already disturbed individual. An example of will would have been deciding "wait, let's pick a less gruesome and ultimately more effective method."

Borzak · May 23, 2016

Should have shot him and not the lions.

Aaron · May 23, 2016

So, if free will is just an illusion, does that mean that, given the ability to predict the pattern all the sub-atomic particles in the universe would take over the next ~14 billion years, it would have been possible to predict the emergence of dickbutt at the time of the Big Bang?

Phazael · May 24, 2016

Technically yes, but its unlikely that a computer capable of creating an accurate predictive model would be able to fit in the confines of the universe it is measuring. It sort of runs similar to the Uncertainty Principle from Quantumn physics. Knowing that everything is predictable does us no good because we lack the capacity to map out the entire chain of events, comprehensively (the universe is too vast and complex), which is needed since you have forces like gravity that act over effectively infinite distance. Its a good parallel to what Lithose is saying (I think) which is that even if we were able to prove that free will does not exist, it would not do us any practical good anyhow.

For a more humorous philosophical take on that subject, read up on the Total Perspective Vortex from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

Jive Turkey · May 24, 2016

Phazael_sl said:
even if we were able to prove that free will does not exist, it would not do us any practical good anyhow.

I find this argument so strange. Knowledge for knowledge's sake is more than enough reason

mkopec · May 24, 2016

I do think its kind of cool that the universe found a way to know itself and study itself with consciousness and introspection, meaning intelligent life.

Cad · May 24, 2016

Jive Turkey_sl said:
I find this argument so strange. Knowledge for knowledge's sake is more than enough reason

If we discover that we don't have free will, it was always determined that we would discover it, and so it shouldn't really be wonderful or interesting at all. It's just another day in a predetermined life. Boring.

The Free Will Thread

Buzzfeed Editor

Karen

Buzzfeed Editor

Buzzfeed Editor

Low and to the left

soʞɐɯɹɐɥd

soʞɐɯɹɐɥd

Buzzfeed Editor

Buzzfeed Editor

Bearded Ape

Buzzfeed Editor

Karen

Being Poor Sucks.

Golden Baronet of the Realm

Bronze Baron of the Realm

Goonsquad Officer

Confirmed Beta Shitlord, Fat Bastard

Karen

scientia potentia est