A World with Free Will

[Carinthium]

The evidence in the real world tends to point against the possibility that Free Will, as commonly understood, actually exists. There is also a strong case that the popular conception of free will (as opposed to say, compatibalism) is incoherent.

But how hard would it be to figure out an internally coherent structure for a hypothetical world (with different laws of physics, obviously) in which Free Will actually existed? How close could a hypothetical universe come to fitting the popular idea of how Free Will works? Any ideas?

[madd0ct0r]

it wouldn't appear any different, just with a different engine under the bonnet.

[Carinthium]

Some things would have to be different, even if subtle ones. It would be impossible to 100% predict another person's behaviour, for example- scientific tests which directly monitored the brain would also end up with odd and unpredictable results.

I was more asking about the actual underlying structure, anyway- even if it looked the same on the surface, the laws of physics would have to be quite different.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Actually, speaking as a neuroscience (near graduate) - no.
The evidence currently shows that you're a deterministic pile of grey matter. Your brain decides what to do before you "decide"to do it, and you can be made to do things and will justify them via confabulations like Ï just felt like doing X".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet
the upcoming outcome of a decision could be found in study of the brain activity in the prefrontal and parietal cortex up to 7 seconds before the subject was aware of their decision.""
unconscious processes in the brain are the true initiator of volitional acts, and free will therefore plays no part in their initiation. If unconscious brain processes have already taken steps to initiate an action before consciousness is aware of any desire to perform it, the causal role of consciousness in volition is all but eliminated, according to this interpretation. For instance, Susan Blackmore's interpretation is "that conscious experience takes some time to build up and is much too slow to be responsible for making things happen."""

And that's ignoring the ability to stimulate parts of the brain, causing people to, say, raise their hands, and they'll justify it by saying Ï suddenly decided I wanted to raise my hand"!


/Brain rant over.

[Stark]

What's that a no to exactly? Nobody is asking you to cut and paste about determinism, they're asking you to speculate about a non-deterministic universe.

[Scrib]

Some things would have to be different, even if subtle ones. It would be impossible to 100% predict another person's behaviour, for example- scientific tests which directly monitored the brain would also end up with odd and unpredictable results.

I was more asking about the actual underlying structure, anyway- even if it looked the same on the surface, the laws of physics would have to be quite different.

This is what I see. Would psychology exist at all as a science (though people apparently still argue about this today)?

[Formless]

This is such a loaded question its hilarious. Do you know what the opposite of determinism is? Its not some illusive concept like "Free Will" (and I must ask, is that like Free Beer or Free Speech? Or is there some guy named "Will" who we are trying to free from slavery?). The opposite of determinism is randomness. Which-- guess what-- exists at the fundamental level of this universe. You cannot understand quantum physics without needing to understand probability theory, let alone psychology and the social sciences. Hell, modern biology is based on the idea of random mutation as the ultimate source of all genetic diversity. And chemistry has the physical law of entropy, which on one hand can be thought of as deterministic or even fatalistic in that everything returns to a lowest energy state in the end; and yet, part of that law that is often overlooked is that it is not time reversible *. Meaning that if you do a chemical reaction twice, even if every particle started in the same position at the beginning of the reaction there is no guarantee that they will end in the same final position if you could keep track of that. Only that they will always end up in (an iteration of) the lowest energy state possible.

What I'm saying is, basically, the very premise of this thread is logically flawed. We already live in the universe you describe. Not fully deterministic: predictably random without being incoherent. From a logical standpoint, I don't think there is a functional definition of Free Will if you keep thinking of it as the opposite of determinism. Granted, I can think of many arguments for "Determinism" that piss me off like a drunk sailor...

The evidence currently shows that you're a deterministic pile of grey matter. Your brain decides what to do before you "decide"to do it, and you can be made to do things and will justify them via confabulations like Ï just felt like doing X".

And this horseshit is basically one of those "we can detect brain activity in a dead fish" aspects of neuroscience. You and your brain are the same damn entity. Its not logically possible for your brain to make a decision before you do. That is like saying motion happens before anything has accelerated. Alternatively, its like saying that a computer calculates something before it shows up on screen. Its either logically impossible, or should elicit the "no shit" response every time its mentioned.

Now, it is true that your brain makes a decision before conscious awareness of the result happens. But for starters this isn't some sort of amazing revelation. Every day everyone does things that are trivial enough we can focus on something else while we work. For instance, driving, walking, making a cup of mocha, any other activity like that. You don't need to put this activity to some amazing scrutiny, so you can do it without much conscious awareness at all. Are you not still doing it? Of course you are.

The other thing, and this is where I draw the line between neuroscience students being technically correct and lying by omission, is that studies of executive function still demonstrate that our brain has the ability to veto behaviors and decisions that were made before becoming aware of them. And this function... happens at a conscious level. You moron. Are you sure you are studying neuroscience, or are neuroscientists really as stupid as I fear?

This is what I see. Would psychology exist at all as a science (though people apparently still argue about this today)?

Uh, yes? Again, the actual logical opposite of determinism is randomness, not "Free Will". Psychology and sociology are already quite heavily based on statistical models. So it would look... exactly like it looks today.




* Fun fact, not only is this true, but entropy is the only physical law that can't be time reversible. It basically defines "Time" as we experience it, with a distinct past, present, and future all existing in one "direction".

[Carinthium]

As I said, I was asking about trying to create a hypothetical model as close as possible to Free Will as popularly understood. I admitted there is a strong case for the model, unaltered, being logically incoherent.

And no, a world with Free Will is not the one we live in.

[Formless]

I know what you said, what I am saying is that there is no answer to your question. The popular definitions of Free Will are too vague or self contradictory to point one out as the "definitive" version, and even among professional philosophers the debate is kept alive in large part because they almost deliberately refuse to agree to one standard meaning. If you can't define your terms, you can't form a logical argument or model with them. Of any kind.

[Spoonist]

Actually if we go with the "popular" definition of free will, then I'd postulate that it includes enough pseudoscience that if we would create a hypothetical model to make it true then we'd have to include such sillyness as "the secret" actually working. This because the popular view being very much tied to religious notions.
So you have just created any random fantasy world where the power of the divine exists in a real sense.

But you guys should really read up on the compatibilitist view.
Depending on how you view the definition of free will there doesn't have to be a contradiction of a deterministic world and the free will choices in such a world. It says that it is a false dilemma stemming from metaphysical traditions...

[Korto]

The evidence currently shows that you're a deterministic pile of grey matter. Your brain decides what to do before you "decide"to do it, and you can be made to do things and will justify them via confabulations like Ï just felt like doing X".

And this horseshit is basically one of those "we can detect brain activity in a dead fish" aspects of neuroscience. You and your brain are the same damn entity. Its not logically possible for your brain to make a decision before you do. That is like saying motion happens before anything has accelerated. Alternatively, its like saying that a computer calculates something before it shows up on screen. Its either logically impossible, or should elicit the "no shit" response every time its mentioned.

My God, Formless has said something that I one hundred percent agree with, no reservations. And the rest of the post I snipped the quote from, too. What is happening here?

Or is it Straha who I can keep on seeing where he's coming on, but can never really agree on his direction?

[Formless]

My God, Formless has said something that I one hundred percent agree with, no reservations. And the rest of the post I snipped the quote from, too. What is happening here?

Or is it Straha who I can keep on seeing where he's coming on, but can never really agree on his direction?

I don't remember any significant arguments you and I have had. You aren't exactly on my list of "idiots I just have to put up with repeatedly". Then again, Straha is, though I never bother arguing with him for the same reason I stopped arguing religion a while ago.

But yeah, of all the sciences psychology really is my forte, so maybe that has something to do with it. Not only am I studying it in school, I even watch blogs just for the news in psychology (I could reccomend a few if you like, or at least one related to neuroscience). So, yeah, there are lots of things like this I know a thing or two about and how they relate across sciences.

[Stark]

It doesn't take your biography to see that poor old Death was arguing with himself. He could have talked about the physical implications of a brain that was able to create original or non-deterministic volition, but I'm pretty sure he just cut and pasted something from somewhere else.

[Korto]

I don't remember any significant arguments you and I have had.

I do a lot of lurking, little posting. This was just remarkable because you managed to sum up (likely better than I could) my feelings on the "Free will" argument I think exactly. Normally, there's always something I disagree with somewhere, even if only on the periphery.

[The Grim Squeaker]

I'm pretty sure he just cut and pasted something from somewhere else.

Pfft. The lack of pragmatic or synctactic ability in my writing should have made it obvious that I wrote that up on the spot! I resent your copy-pasta and lack of a unique disorganized style sir!

[Ziggy Stardust]

Also, as interesting as Libet's experiments were, the "pop sci" interpretations of their results don't hold up. Libet himself, I believe, said not too long ago that his original conclusions were inaccurate.

[Lurks-no-More]

The evidence currently shows that you're a deterministic pile of grey matter. Your brain decides what to do before you "decide"to do it, and you can be made to do things and will justify them via confabulations like Ï just felt like doing X".

And this horseshit is basically one of those "we can detect brain activity in a dead fish" aspects of neuroscience. You and your brain are the same damn entity. Its not logically possible for your brain to make a decision before you do. That is like saying motion happens before anything has accelerated. Alternatively, its like saying that a computer calculates something before it shows up on screen. Its either logically impossible, or should elicit the "no shit" response every time its mentioned.

He's just falling into the good old Cartesian dualism, without probably even realizing he's doing it. And I'm sure a lot of neuroscientists, even ones who should know better, do the same thing. It's an important, if fallacious, element of the Western culture and thought that's been present for centuries now.

Now, in general, I'm neither a neuroscientist nor a philosopher, but I'm pretty much convinced that "Free Will", as the concept is generally defined and used, is useless and doesn't really make sense given everything we've figured out about how the world and the human mind work. The whole question is completely wrong, like arguing whether or not there can be people living on the underside of the Flat Earth.