Determinism vs. Freewill

[Tormod]

First of all, let me say that some of my posts above were posted on New Year's Eve and as such may have been a bit light-spirited. I apologize if it was taken as rude or offensive.

What makes me tired of this discussion is stuff like this, taken from a few pages back:

Originally Posted by lindagarrette

It isn't necessary to plow through all the aspects of determinism to understand why it is a reality. If you understand the scientific method, then you already get it. Thought and anaysis are also helpful. I keep point out that no one can contradict it but so far no one seems to even want to try. That would be a first step. And it is the core of the scientific method.

(My bold.)

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". It is exactly how certain religious discussions at these forums look - pure ping-pong with no substance and absolutely no way for anyone to learn because the ones who hold the "truth" (ie, you and FT in this case) claim that it is the only way to understand the world, yet fail to explain in so many words why that is true. To expect us to read books is fine, but being able to contribute the meaning of anything to others is vital for these forums to work.

Turning your avatar into an angry demon is fine if it lets you vent off some steam.

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).

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:

Originally Posted by lindagarrette

Free will is a popular notion because we want to believe our mind is in charge. But the "mind" is a metaphysical concept. So it exists, but not in the physical world.

Again, my bold.

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.

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.

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.

[Aquagem]

Originally Posted by lindagarrette

I suggest you read Dennett's work for several reasons. First, it will clear up the misconception that without free will we are merely robots, and that determinism means predeterminism.

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?

In Darwin's Dangerous Idea, he has a chapter on "Cranes and Skyhooks" that seems to fit in here. Both lift things from low to high altitude, but one is "real" and other "imaginary". The popular concept of free will is of a skyhook sort -- granted from above, not part of the physical universe. But the popular notion of many things is flawed, being our conscious interpretation of what are, at root, emotional events. It's not that the concept of free will has no value, but it's very likely that it's not what it appears on the surface.

This is one of things that drew me to Hypography -- the potential to be challenged and develop beyond the boundaries we all can't help but live with.

I understand the rancor this topic engenders, but it's good for science if we can get past it. I have a book on parenting teenagers that points out the following: "If the emotion you're feeling is anger, then you're in a power struggle..." Power struggles arise because of incommensurable, or seemingly incommensurable, ideas for which both sides have their justifications. The way out, in science, is to elevate the discussion to the next level of abstraction and see if some synthesis is possible that can show the opposing viewpoints to be instances of a higher class. There are plenty around that can't currently be so resolved (God or no God, god or no god, etc.)

I have a feeling (take for what it's worth) that free will and determinism, long considered polar opposites, may not actually be opposites at all. We are talking about some pretty high level abstractions, here, e.g., "determinism", "cause and effect", "freedom", and the like, all of which are substantiated by elements of prior worldviews, and at least some of which have been thrown into question (e.g., by ideas of chaos theory, quantum, evolution, etc.), but which haven't percolated down to lower levels or infused other areas of discourse.

That's why I'd like to see what Dennett has to say. In DDI (Darwins's), Richard Dawkins credits Dennett with teaching him (Dawkins) about what he (Dawkins) had written. The risk is having to assimilate some difficult new concepts. The hope is that we can re-illuminate an old debate and come away agreeing on a new perspective that unites our disparate views.

The other major alternative in power struggles is to gird our loins (which is damned uncomforatble) and to to war. Unsavory...

[Tormod]

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

[lindagarrette]

Originally Posted by Tormod

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

Originally Posted by lindagarrette

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]

Originally Posted by Aquagem

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]

Originally Posted by pgrmdave

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]

Originally Posted by Freethinker

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]

Originally Posted by lindagarrette

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]

Originally Posted by Tormod

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