uh, obi...

My problem is that you can't just make up a metaphor and just magically have it correspond to the real world. So, giving me another metaphor certainly isn't going to help. What evidence do you have that such a hocke puck exists? That's the question.

Oh, OK, NOW I understand, at least I think I do...you're asking me how to jsutify not causality but the idea of an uncaused cause, which I was trying to represent with the baseball and hockey puck (wow, that does sound odd to type lol...)

Well, to be honest...

That was MY question. ;)

I said--or tried to--that the only way out of our lives just being cause and effect is if we could have an action free of cauality, and uncaused cause, and that's MY question for someone else, how can we justify that? Where would such an uncaused cause come from, and how could that possibly exist?

So yes...that's MY question, I was just illustrating that the hockey puck example WOULD be an example of something I'd consider a free and uncaused action (within the metaphor) I didn't mean to imply that I am taking that hockey puck/Act of God/Uncaused Cause to be factual, my whole question is how such a thing could be, hence, how can we have free will, and if we don't, then how does that change our perception of life?

IC

My answer would be: No. There can be no uncaused cause. The best thing we can hope for is that the human brain is complex enough that it continues to appear non-deterministic. Which, would be about as good as actually having free will.

But if the human brain were truly complex, taking "complex" to mean advanced and an advanced mind to be a positive thing, wouldn't it's being advanced lead ot our realization of determinism or fatalism?

After all, a fly has a rather uncomplex mind--at least compared to ours--and HE certainly beleives his actions are free or, rather, he doesn't consider that his actions might be determined and so acts as though he is in control of his life.

For what you are proposing, would it then not be better to have a fly's mind than a human being's "complex" mind?



Furhter, while I DO think a great many things are determined, and would certainly endorse some form of determinism, I don't think we can quite rule out all free will.

To give an example:

Suppose I place a dog, who's not eaten all day and so is rather hungry, in a room that is exatly symmetrical all around. That room has two bowls, both of which are the same in size, color, shape, etc. There is precisely the same brand of dog food in each, and precisely the same amount. I have even gone so far as to arrange that the order the food is in in both bowls is identical, ie, all the red kibble balls are on the top of both helpings. There is absolutely nothing to distinguish the one from the other in terms of quantity or quality, and I place the dog squarely in the middle between them as he is blindfolded, and then proceed to take off the blindfold so as to expose him to both bowls at the same time.

CAUSALLY...which should he choose? What causal force could possibly determine one bowl over the other?

That allows for perhaps only random freedom of choice, that is, it is perhaps only random, then, what bowl he'd pick, but the fact remains I cannot see any causal evidence to suggest that one would certainly be his caused choice, and so he has a free choice, albeit one that is potentially random.

If we accept THIS, however, we may allow for a sort of "branching" free will within a determinist universe...

First, there is absolutely not evidence to support that flies are aware of their own existence. In fact, there's strong evidence to suggest that most animals are completely unaware of their existence. Some examples of animals that have some form of awareness are dogs, dolphins, various primates (such as humans).

Second, the dog example is not good evidence for free will. Studies have specifically been done that show actions like this are decided on an unconscious level. Afterwards, a human rationalizes the choice. The dog, just keeps running towards which ever bowl it's already picked.

An unconscious choice?

I'm not arguing whether or not the choice is made ACTIVELY or even CONSCIOUSLY, but simply that it has no foundation in causality.

That he made an unconscious choice is still a CHOICE, that's my point.

As far as the fly goes...alright, fair enough, I'm not a scientist so I did not know that they didn't know they existed at all (but wait--don't they need at least some level of awareness to eat, sex, etc.? Again I'm not a biologist, so I don't know, honest question.)

I was under the impression that most people considered free will to be of conscious nature. But, even if it isn't, I would say it's more random than anything else. Which neuron fired first? Not an indicator of free will.

"But if the human brain were truly complex, taking "complex" to mean advanced and an advanced mind to be a positive thing, wouldn't it's being advanced lead ot our realization of determinism or fatalism?"

Why would you expect such a thing from the brain? We don't know how the brain works at all, but you think it should understand the fundamental workings? Plus, people believe things that don't make sense all the time. Such as God (or lack of God, as the case may be : )) This is no different.

@the first post:

Well, what would we call that then? We can't call that a determined action, as we cannot trace the line where we could see that whatever neuron fired first--to use your example--had to have fired first as it was caused to do so by a prior event or cause. Spinoza, perhaps the greatest extreme of the no free will/all is determined view in philosophy, makes the assertion that all causal actions are NECESSARY, ie, it would be necessary for the 3rd domino to fall if the 2nd one did as has already been eplained, for as we conceive of dominoes, one knocks over the next, and so in that relationship the 3rd domino's fall would be a necessary action as it was caused by a necessary action itself--the 2nd domino striking it--and will cause itself a necessary action, the 4th domino's falling.

There is nothing in the random firing of neurons in the dog case, however, to suggest that one nueron HAD to fire first and thus have the dog make his decision, it seems arbitrary and/or random.

So if we cannot classify a random act that we can conceive of as NOT being necessary--as really, is there anything to suggest that Neuron A HAD to fire before Neuron B and thus allow for the dog's choice, and if there is a reason why A had to be fired first, then it'd seem it IS caused, but then by what if we admit it's just a case of whatever's fastest, it seems inescapably arbitrary--and this doesn't qualify as being sufficient for an free choice...

What is it?

If not a determined/caused action and not a free choice, what is it?

@the second post:

Because we generally expect a more complex organism to at least be capable of having more complex thoughts, ie, a human being is more complex than a pig is more complex than a bird is more complex than a euglena (I hope I spelled that right, a semester gone and already I've forgotten my cell biology terms lol.)

Further, we generally tend to want/hope that complex organisms that are capable of complex thought and cognition will do so; if we have an incredibly bright person, we would hope he would put his mind to the test, usually, rather than veg our and watch "Married With Children" reruns all day long (no matter how awesome that show was.) :)

We'd then expect this advanced mind, this brain of ours to work as well as it can--we generally don't HOPE our thinking power will be diminished, even "wishful thinking" isn;t lessening thinking power so much as just projecting an illusion for ourselves--and so it'd come face to face with this question of determinism.

John Stuart Mill said it's better to be an unsatisfied Socrates than a satisfied pig...

@ obiwan : you call this "one of the greatest philosophical questions in all of human existance" - according to whom? a few professors who get paid to debate it? some undergrads that think if they study for a few years they become supermen?

As for the dog example, you have described determinism perfectly. The dog will have its own pre-existing biases that will determine what bowl they choose. A different dog will choose a different bowl. In the real world there is no such thing as perfect symmetry, so you are chasing your tail on that one, pun intended :)

@Crazy Anglican

It seems to me as if the trend of evidence being gathered in neuroscience is pointing in the direction that our "choices" are merely the application of a particular brain chemistry mix to a given situation. Choice is meaningless without perception to guide it, no? Our perceptions, however, are subject to moment by moment changes to our neural chemistry that occur below our conscious ability to affect them. You only need to see the effects of a relatively clumsy tool like psychotropic medications to recognize that chemistry rules our brains, far beyond any degree that can be ascribed to "choice". However, brain chemistry at any particular instant is the result of trillions of inputs, very few of which occur at the conscious level. Therefore, although our will appears to be free, that's because the choices we have our constrained by inputs we don't even register.

@fielder:

You wouldn't consider "Are my actions my own that I may be proud or ashamed of or merely determined plots along the line?" a great philosophical issue?

Well, the Pre-Socratics thought it was enough of an issue...
The Big Three Monothesitic Religions grapple with that issue in relation to a God...
Plato and Aristotle seemed to think it was worthwhile...
Descartes, Spinoza, Hobes, and Locke all thought it was worthwhile...
David Hume, Gottfried Leibniz, Arthur Schopenhauer, Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Nietzsche, Martin Heidegger, Jean-Paul Sartre, Buddha, the Eastern religions...

Really all or most of philosophy and theology at some level traces back to this idea, either in relation to a God, in relation to there NOT being a God, dealing with causal laws, determining legal procedings (how can we punish a murderer if he had no choice in the manner, if it was determined and he had absolutely no control over what would happen?)

Not just a few undergrads...really, the entirety of the human race would care about whether or not life was free or determined at some level at some point, I'd say.

Really, perhaps it's only those few undergrads who think they have it all figured out and scoff at the philosophical question who are in the doghouse here (pun intended...however bad a pun it may be.) :)

And you have NOT adressed the bowl question, as you have dodged the scenario entirely by claiming there can be no such thing as perfect ymmetry; before I commit a sin against science again and say that there is--as again, damnit Jim, I'm a writer, not a physicist!--the scenario was a thought experiment and was intended to b taken as such, and so you have not treated it as such, but rather as a literal scenario.

The bowls are exactly the same.
The food brand, quantity, quality, color, smell, arrangement, all qualities of the food are exactly the same.
The room is perfectly symmetrical.
The dog has never been there before.
The dog has no prior memories...I erased them ALL prior to this experiment! (Thank goodness it's only a thought experiment or PETA would be on my back, eh?) ;)
The dog is brought in a sound-proof, smell-poof, sight-proof box to the site.
The dog is let out in a position where she sees each bowl at the exact same nanosecond.

What bowl will the dog choose, then fiedler, Lefty or Righty?

There ae no inclinations, past or present, that will or could guide her one way or the other, however arbitrary.

Which bowl?

@obi - the dog may have no memories, but it has tendencies inhernet to it's personality. Those will drive the decision made by the dog.

@ Bob Genghiskhan

I would agree that chemistry can influence choice and that there are many other possible influences both noted and imperceptible. I'm not sure that having an influence upon is quite the same thing as controlling or taking the choice from though.

Forget the dog, consider Paul the Octopus.

There is a tendency to think as long as we don't produce the soul on a silver platter, everything is determined. In some ways, it's a question of a burden of proof. Even in neuroscience, there is still a black box into which we cannot reach. Of course chemistry effects decision making or the illusion thereof, that doesn't make the decision under any of those circumstances necessarily any less free. There are any number of ways I could react when presented with a choice. Italian or Chinese tonight, my wife asks. I could make a snap decision for Italian because it was the first in the list, I could think which I had had most recently and choose the other or the same. I could consider what my wife will think of me if I choose one or the other. I could quiet my mind and ask my stomach what it wants. I could flip a coin or call Bob and ask him to pick a number. I could cut off her head with a swiss army knife. I could ruminate on all the possible reactions to the question and I could pick or not pick any of the above or pick one and then change my mind. Maybe I'm way behind on the current state of neuroscience, but it seems like for neuroscience to do away with questions of free will, it would have to accurately predict the process and the outcome of my choice, not in terms of statistic probabilities, but with certainty. And I don't think we're very close to doing that.
So I think to get back a little to the original post, I don't agree with the professor's methods, but I think his conclusion is justified. Where does it get us to imagine ourselves to be aeolian harps? We do not suddenly cease to exist, we are not suddenly relieved of all necessity for making decisions or our thirst for new information and perspective, we are not exculpated from our responsibility. It is for the best that we continue to inform ourselves, consider carefully or quickly when necessary, contemplate and justify or resist power or values or actions or aesthetics. And it is for the best that we continue making decisions, for in making decisions, we confirm and assert our will, we create ourselves.

"Maybe I'm way behind on the current state of neuroscience, but it seems like for neuroscience to do away with questions of free will, it would have to accurately predict the process and the outcome of my choice, not in terms of statistic probabilities, but with certainty. And I don't think we're very close to doing that. "

Just because our minds are completely determined doesn't mean they are completely predictable. There's the problem of computational irreducibility. How can you carry out a simulation of a human brain that outpaces it (so we can use its predictions) while still maintaining accuracy? A perfect simulation of the human mind would be as useless as a perfect one-to-one scale map of England, as they would be replicas. The best you can do are approximations, and ever closer approximations. There are many experiments in neuroscience that have shown that manipulation of certain areas of the brain manifest in probabilistic biases in choices, at least in animals, and I believe also in humans.

Here ya go:

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/04/mind_decision

@ obiwan: well thanks for the pre-school level philosophy lecture. I dont want to get into a contest about who can type the most so will try and keep it concise.

1. Plato, Aristotle etc... The average bright 15-year-old today knows far more about the nature of reality then these guys ever did. And am I supposed to be impressed that organised religion pretends the question is interesting? Surely you jest?

2. The Dog. You should try listening to abgemacht. What you have done is create an artificial scenario where you KNOW there is no answer, and then hold it up as some great example of philosophical mystery. Your example can be reduced to: Dog must choose A or B, who knows what he will choose? Hmmmm, BIG mystery!

@fiedler:

I'm not even going to bother answering your assertion that the modern 15-year old knows more about reality than Plato or Aristotle...there IS a tendency of mine to put such figures on something of a pedestal, but really--the average 15-year old knows more about smoking, playing WoW, how to use iTunes, and Conan O'Brien.

As far as the nature of ethics, free will, logical theory, and so forth...I'll take the flawed philosophies of Plato the Perturbed and The Big Aristotle.



OK, so I didn't intend to wind up defending free will, and really I have no desire to do so, as I don;t think that it's real in the common sense...I think there is a branching sense of free will, which I was trying to illlustrate with the dog--if you want to call that randomness, the random occurance of this neuron firing first and so forth, that's fine, either term--but anyway, then if we have no defenders of free will, the second poart of my question:

What's that MEAN, fundamentally, for any meaning we might have?

We generally like to take pride in our accomplishments and punish wrong-doing...hell, on the site we like to think that wicked stab of ours was something that we could be rpoud of and the stabee can then be awfully pissed and wish to REACT.

ACT and REACT...all seems futile if it's PLANNED...

So if it was all planned out anyway, is there any value to Shakespeare's works, or Nieetzsche's, or Hume's, or Homer's, or *insert someone YOU find important if none of those four figures cut the mustard for you.*

ok ok but I did say BRIGHT 15 year old.

I think things get confused by the very fuzzy term "free-will". Its an abstract concept. For example the 'sides' of a cube, or a piece of paper do not exist in reality, they are a concept that exist only in our minds as perception. Make yourself a mobius strip if you want to prove this. The fact that we agree what 'sides' are, is because it is a practically useful concept to have. So similarly, 'free-will' is just an idea that represents the practical fact that we have decisions to make, and its very important we do make decisions.

The likely fact that all is deterministic does not really matter in reality because of the extreme limitations of our knowledge and the enormous amount of data in the universe.
Our knowledge is so miniscule that we pretty much live in chaos, so all we can do is try our best and enjoy the ride :^) determinism does not imply pre-determinism in any sense relevant to our lives.

As Chrispminis (what a name!) said, and please correct me if I'm FOS, perfect knowledge is actually theoretically impossible, as no system can completely monitor itself, because it takes time to think, and whilst its thinking more shit is happening.

A Chess game is 100% deterministic, but we still enjoy it because we have limited knowledge, which brings effort and luck factors into it.

As far as reward and punishment goes: its again a completely practical mechanism that is simply adaptive. If we want to live in a good world we need to make crime NOT pay and virtue rewarding and good-feeling. In most civilised countries, the official line is not to punish offenders in a moral sense, but to prevent them doing further harm, by incarcerating and/or rehabilitating them.

Shakespear rules, hume's good, Homer - meh, Nietzsche funny but not a good role model! Ayrton Senna rules forever :)

"What's that MEAN, fundamentally, for any meaning we might have?"

I don't think our lack of free will is of any practical consequence. The realization that our thoughts and wills are the results of a myriad of physical processes does not suddenly banish such thoughts and wills. The idea that it is we who decide and the idea that it is chemical and physical processes dictate this are not mutually exclusive, it is simply that one is a more proximal cause, while the other is the more ultimate cause. It makes no sense to talk about chemical reactions or physical forces "deciding" because choice is a concept that only really applies to conscious entities. Whatever intuitive sense of free will that you have does not disappear just because you realize you cannot supercede physical law through sheer force of will. I'm not sure what else in terms of free will you could possibly ask of the universe.

Agreed. Plus, we can't predict what people will do, so it changes nothing.

@chrispminis
thanks for the article. It nicely demonstrates what I was saying. I understand that not-predictable does not necessarily mean not determined. If I were a neuroscientist, my work would proceed without any interference from such meta-physical mumbo jumbo as free will. Still, the possibility cannot be ruled out even from a scientific POV, just like science cannot rule out the possibility of God, and philosophically, as abgemacht concisely sums up, the spectre of determinism changes nothing.

@obi:
I see it now!

My definition: event is caused, results uncaused

Your definition: event is uncaused, results uncaused

@obi: determinism a variant on the "head in the box" argument--what if you're just a head in a box, and there's no physical reality to the world you think you live in? The answer is, "doesn't matter." If you're in a box you can't get out of, you might as well live in the box. Our experience of free will is one of those boxes--you can argue about it forever, but you're still going to experience making choices. That's the box you're in--deal with it and move on.