There exist now, at least in Japan, some robots that via their sensor gain a lot of useful information about the enviroment and serve as human looking receptionist to answer questions of tourist. Less human looking ones walk around, play the buggle, dance etc. I see no problem with a complex system controlling itself - Some humans have even been known to do it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Your point is also why I then, ingnorance of logical systems, I think that "self referencing" / "self reflecive" system do play a major role in the control systems that create us, if we do actually make choices, have GFW. I agree fully with fact that much, probably at least 90+ percent, of neural activity in humans is unconscious, and most of it not even capable of being conscious without specificially directing our attention (whatever that means) to the item you want to bring into conscious awareness. For example when walking you have presure tranceducer nerves in your feet that are constantly helping you not fall over, but only by paying attention to their "signals" can your bring these information to the conscious level; however, no matter how hard you try, other brain processing activities, can not be made conscious. For example, the brain is active in the regulation of the water recovery thru the intestine walls but you can not become aware of these "signals" coming to the brain as you can with the signals coming from the feet while walking. I would venture a guess at more than 80 percent of all brain processing of sensory signals in totally inaccessible to the conscious level. On yur point about automatic processing, I agree too. Let me tell a true story, about this: I had a farm and four wheel drive car. A poor, simple (but clever) neighbor had a sick horse, that he tied to fence along road beside my farm but not where I would notice it. Often I was not even there, as I had very honest man looking after my cattle, but I happened to be there when the horse died, on the road along side my farm. My honest man and I hooked a cable around the dead horse and pulled it down the road to where there was a steep hill down the road's other side from my farm in to valley no one owned, or perhaps I did, but it was too close to stream in valley to use legally. I did not want to aks my man to go down that steep slope, so I did, holding on to the rope we just tied to the horse while he, being stronger, pushed it, with objective of hoping it would slide down the slope, if we could just get it over the little ridge the road maintaince machine had thrown up. Well I lost my grip on the rope and tumbled down the slope instead of the horse. I was not hurt and must not have lost consciousness in the sense of still rapidly processing the information my eyes and tactile senses were providing to my body. I was not aware of what my body did until at least 25 feet down the slope, when I "returned" without any memory of the things my man said I did (pushed off trees, rolled, grabbed limbs etc.) to avoid serious injury. (I got just a few cuts and bruses.) I honestly think the sensory processing demand on my brain were too intense for it to bother to run that part of the real time simulation I think is normally creating "me." I.e. for perhaps 10 seconds I was a Zombie, without consciousness awareness, but very operational and functional. By first edit: back from swim now and soon I will respond to Dale.- His latest post is very clear and I want to answer it the same way.
I agree that the appearance of choice doesn't necessarily mean that FW exists. I don't consider my comments to be anything in the way of a proof of FW by any means. I intended only to assume FW and then illustrate why I think it is completely compatible with determinism. I do not claim to have a proof of FW. I just think that the typical debate about FW is silly where the FW camp tries to show how QM effects can be important at neural scales. Who wants FW to be a cosmic craps shoot anyway? I want the FW where I can make a choice and carry it out. I like to think that I am a person who makes choices based on reason, goals, and desires. If so, then my choices would be deterministic. Anyone who understood my goals, desires, and reasons would be able to predict my choices in any given situation. So such choices would be deterministic and yet that is the kind of FW I want. Anything less (e.g. QM-based FW) is not even worth arguing about IMO. What is Searle's chinese box? The intended claim of my first example (Coke v. Pepsi) is: free will !=> not(determinism) The intended claim of my second example (QM-controlled robot) is: not(determinism) !=> free will -Dale
I am glad. It is hard to be clear when, as we all admit, everything we are discussing is based on such fuzzy concepts. -Dale
You even have strong experimental evidence that this is what happens in humans. I.e. proof that the choice is made in the brain, in some cases, nearly a second before the human consciously decides. I think it was Lipet, a doctor who often was doing brain surgery more than 20 years ago, who first showed this in many different experiments that went basically as crudely described in next paragraph. (First you must know that brain surgery is routinely preformed on a fully conscious person. - Ironically the center of all pain, feels no pain as you cut parts of it out. If removing part of the brain, usually for focal epilepsy, but also some times trying to make sure all of the "un-needed" brain tissue adjacent to a cancer is removed to prevent its re-growth, the doctor is constantly taking with the patient, asking him to move his arm, foot etc. depending on where doctor is working in the brain. Once I was looking at a man's brain while he was talking to the doctor, but I have been that close in the OR only a few times.) Here is one of Lipet's experiment in crude outline: Patient is instructed to "randomly" push a button when ever he "chooses to do so" and simultaneously with making that "button-push decision" note where an accelerated "sweep second hand" (perhaps 10 seconds for 360 turn) is located and them tell where the hand was after he has pushed the button. (I won't go into details of other experiments that show the button push could cause delays in other processes, etc. So sequence is: Decide noting clock position when doing so; push; tell. (The time of the push is not important, but also recorded.) Libet has monitor electrodes, mainly on an area in front of the motor cortex called the "pre motor cortex" and in the frontal cortex if that area is also exposed." The activity in these areas almost always precedes the time the patient thinks he made the decision by about 1/2 second at least. Libet's electro physiological signals and the clock (as saw-tooth wave, I think,) are recorded on the same strip recorder - no judgment calls by Lipet. The data clearly shows the actual decision is clearly made unconsciously before it enters consciousness by at least 500ms, and I think I recall, even a second earlier in the frontal cortex if those signals are available. It is generally thought that frontal cortex is the main judgment, decision-making area. That is the area, which is the most enlarged part of the brain, relative to rest of brain, in man. Man uses it a lot, but I think never has any conscious access to process occurring there, only to their results. Lot of other experiments show that the reasons why we do thing and make decision are often not the reasons we think are responsible. These experiments I refer to are not some psycho-babble about your hidden hate of your father, but similar physical observations, although often more related to decisions you are forced to make while watching a computer screen display. Now to Dale.
Second part first: I agree with you that whether it is by "soul and miracles" or by "agent" created by processes any physicists could accept, does not make any significant difference in how we get GFW, if we do have it (except for the "burn in hell" part, Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! if souls do exist). I am much less confident that we do than you and as you already know (and disagree) believe we can not have anything more than the illusion of FW if the universe is deterministic. As a person educated in physics, I prefer an explanation for GFW that does no violence to the physical laws, instead of one built on souls and miracles, but gave up trying to find one more than 30 years ago. - Only by accident in studies of vision about 12 years ago did I stumble on mechanism that I do think MAY make GFW possible, even a deterministic world. If I have misunderstood your final question and you are really taking a "behaviorist POV" i.e. "If the behavior is the same there is no difference", that is IMHO also wrong, but a long discussion I want to avoid now. Few informed people now accept that approach to knowing how humans operate although it was the approved view, especially in the US and particularly at JHU under Watson and Skinner, years ago. I think the rejection behaviorism has received as a "theory of man," has made some reject its very practical use especially in raising children. I am not much for talking to a three year old when a swiftly applied (at the time of the "error") gentile smack on the bottom works so well. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! (BTW my earlier comment about QM "opening the door" was only a door in man's logic or understanding, not in nature very much like the discovery of E=mc^2 & fusion "opened a door” to understanding how the sun could have been putting out all that energy so long. Until this happen, the solar output by all known processes tended to confirm the Biblical period for the age of the Universe.) On case (1); I have an open mind as to the reality of GFW. I never claim that existence of GFW is proven. I have a strong desire to fit GFW into my general “net of knowledge,” because like every one else, I think I do make decisions; however, my knowledge about neuro-physics and mental processes (See my last post directed to funkstar, for one minor example, and other reasons in the essay you have only started.) make that impossible for me believe (rationally) that GFW can exist in a fully deterministic world. On case (2): Why do I, when serious, think that FW and GFW are incompatible with a deterministic universe?: First let me again agree with you- On a certain high level it is true that Bob ate the McMuffin because he LIKED, their tasted, was HUNGRY, did not WANT to wait till lunch time, HATED the pepper always on the eggs, DESIRED to get some change, KNEW or at least BELIEVED he had to buy something to get change, etc. and these "mental states" (such as referred to by prior words in caps) caused him to choose to buy the McMuffin. The type of cause and effect/act relationship I just agreed is "valid" on the “mental state” level of analysis is, I think, the reason you believe, contrary to me, that FW, even GFW, is not only possible but really does exist even in a deterministic world, which despite a few bullets fired at it by QM (especially the close misses fired by Bell), is still a viable, logical possibility for the true nature of the universe. I.e. the “true deterministic nature” of the universe is just not yet accepted by most physicists, unless, like Einstein, by some sort of “act of faith” (God does not role dice.) Although I agree one can (and always does in every day life) think of these mental states as causal, the cause of Bob buying the McMuffin, I believe in a deeper sense, that these mental states had nothing to do with his purchasing it. (In the traditional jargon of cognitive science, these "mental states" are only "epiphenomenally related", not "causally connected" to the decision, choices, acts. The true cause is deeper, and even precedes the conscious epiphenomenal decision.) Before illustrating this in an analogy, I think you will accept, let me make a related personal comment. -This "my mental states caused my choice/act" explanation is often called "folk psychology" by professionals in the psychology field who, like me, also think the true cause of Bob's buying of McMuffins is deeper and unconscious. (They of course need to be paid to help Bob discovery why he LOVES McMuffins, HATES his sister, WANTS fame, etc.) They have studied years to develop these skills that go beyond "folk psychology" and deeper into why fat Bob eats all those McMuffins and make other self-destructive choices etc. Well, I prefer simple folk psychology to their: "Bob's suppressed frustration on 7th birthday when he did not get either the dog or the bike he wanted etc. is the cause of his self-gratification drive." As if "suppressed frustration" had any more "causal powers" than Bob's folk psychological states! BTW, Bob had entirely forgotten about the bike and dog, until the analysis "helped" him dreg it up in 130 hours of analysis, but soon Bob buys a dog and a fancy bike, and gets in shape (running with the dog and riding the bike) so who am I to be critical when the psychiatrist reports his cure, even showing photo of "fat before Bob" and "trim after Bob" (face masked of course, to protect his identity) at the next meeting of the Am. Psy. Assoc. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! As you may have gathered from that paragraph, this professional view is not the type of "going deeper" into the causes of our acts that I subscribe to. Now let me give my analogy: Assume that when you next get your newspaper one of headlines is: PISA TOWER FALLS !! just above full photo of it on the ground. Then comes the text: "Structural engineering expert, ---- , explained that the lean had gradually increased in the last few months to the point where the tensile strength at the base was marginal and it snapped off in last night's strong wind which caused the fall. .... expert, ----, in the local geology explained that although every effort possible had been made, including injection of 20 tons of concert into the surrounding sub soil, that location's soil is weak and unrepairable. He said no one could predict when it would happen but it was inevitable because of the weak soil, if not yesterday, then someday soon. Our debate is like these two expert's offering differ causes for an act. You are siding with the structural expert, who points to the obvious cause. I prefer the geologist's view, which in this example is literally going deeper to a more IMHO, fundamental cause, one which made the act "inevitable." All of your "mental states", like the lean of the Pisa tower, are caused by processes that are more fundamental. The firing of nerves, which in turn are caused by fluxes of sodium ions returning to the interior of the axons that were approximately -70mV negative until the positive Na ion influx. The discharge of this nerve just mention was caused by a tip in the balance of neurotransmitter fluxes to and from ("up take" of valuable molecules for re use) many endings of other nerves contacting it that had recently fired. etc. All this neural activity completely rigidly fixed by the basic "laws of nature" or "physics" if you not mind irritating some more specialized disciplines such as "chemistry, "neuro-physiology" etc. by this broad jusrisdictional claim for physics. In a fully deterministic world, the wind had no choice but to blow the tower of Pisa down and Bob had no choice but to buy the McMuffin. EVERY THING THAT HAPPENS IN THE FUTURE IN A FULLY DETERMINSITC UNIVERSE IS A DIRECT AND INEVITABLE CONSEQUENCE OF THE STATE OF THE UNIVERSE AT ANY TIME IN THE PAST. That is why I say that Bob did not really make a choice, if the universe is fully deterministic in your case (2). That is also why I say that an "agent," that can make a choice because it is non-material, and thus is not subject to the laws of physics, is REQUIRED if there is to be FW, instead of only an illusion of it, based on the shallow level of understanding that "folk psychology" provides. I.e. Your case (2) is different if you go to the truly basics causes. No choice can be made because everything is an inevitable consequence of the fundamental laws of nature acting on the past state, of the person and of the entire universe, to the extent it is interacing with him. Sorry this is so long, but you wanted me to be careful and clear. I hope I was. PS - earlier I gave the following compact "set theory" summary of my reasoning presented here. Suppose elements of set {N} physically determine all elements of sets {A} and {B}. ("N" is like Nerve firings, chemicals in the body, etc. "A" is Actions like ordering a Mc Muffin, and "B" is Beliefs, such as desires, feelings, all conscious thoughts, etc. often called "mental states") Some of these “conscious thought” items of set {B} are the belief that you are choosing the from the act set {A} the item "a" where "a" = order a Mc Muffin, instead of a hamburger. This belief is not causal. It is false cause, or "epiphenomenal cause." It is an illusion of choice. The real causal item was some combination of the items in set {N} which interestingly never even appear as items in the set {B}. That is, you have no conscious awareness of the true causes of your selection of the McMuffin. You did not make any choice - you only erroneously think you did. The processes that actually "made the choice" (speaking losely as no choice was made) occured before and also generated / provoked Bob's epiphenomenal belief or illusion that Bob consciously chose to buy the McMuffin. See my immediately prior reply to funkstar for proof of this.
I see, but that doesn't count as free will in my book, then. I agree. This is where those pesky definitions come roaring back. Determinism simply isn't compatible with any kind of choice as I know the concept. The concept of choice implies (in my opinion) that there is at least the possibility that you could have chosen the Pepsi instead of the Coke. Determinism implies that there absolutely is no way that could happened. The "cosmic bit" that says "Dale will choose Coke instead of Pepsi" was set to true long before you even starting your choice making process. Free will is an illusion in that your will wasn't free to make the choice. I don't know whether I'm too conditioned to think in mathematical terms, but I simply can't regard a variable (raging over a domain with more than one element) as free if its value is fully specified by its environment. It is in these terms I think of free will and determinism being mutually exclusive. I don't quite agree, but we're not too far from each other, either. My main objection to the free will debate (and this applies as much to classical philosophy as the burrowed scientific feathers of Penrose et al.) is that it genuinely doesn't matter. What possible consequence could it have? I will still act and feel as if I have free will. This relates strongly to my other objection, which is that it must be undecidable (making all this mental masturbation). What decision procedure can we use to decide whether free will is true or not, if that decision procedure is subject to the conundrum itself? As I said before, we could be predetermined to decide that free will was true. Any decision we make on free will, and free will itself, will not necessarily be correlated, regardless of the sophistication of the procedure. Searle's Chinese Room is an argument against strong AI, by having a man with no knowledge of chinese perform a conversation in chinese based on a rule book on symbol manipulation he can understand. Searle says that the man doesn't actually know chinese even though he can shuffle symbols around well enough to convince a chinese reader that he does. In other words, a machine that passes the Turing test isn't "really" intelligent. I'm sure you see the connection. I get it. I even agree (somewhat) with the second one, though not the first. We really should take this to the philosophy forum, btw.
I would like to point out that the obvious cause makes the act inevitable also. Therefore, the mere fact of the inevitability is insufficient to distinguish between the obvious cause and the more fundamental cause. I do not claim to know or be able to prove FW. But pointing out that the universe is deterministic is insufficient to prove that it is not. -Dale
I disagree here. Determinism implies only that what will happen is predictable. I just don't think that the fact that a particular choice is predictable negates the choice. So in your opinion if it is deterministic then it is not free and in my opinion if it is not deterministic then it is not will. We have fundamentally incompatible ideas of FW and no good definition to use to decide between them. Agreed. I think we will have to agree to disagree on the rest. I plainly haven't convinced anyone that FW is even potentially compatible with determinism and I think the whole determinism argument is irrelevant and frankly boring. -Dale
I don't think so. The prediction that a die will roll one of 1 to 6 being true is not the same as the die roll being deterministic. I think this may be yet another source of confusion: When I talk of determinism, I think in fatalistic terms. Imagine the state of the universe, s, and consider the "quantum time step relation" written as -> which updates the state of the universe by one quanta of time. Determinism is then that if s -> s' and s -> s'', then s' = s''. Well, if the outcome of the choice is entirely determined by the state of the universe far before you were born, and you thus have no influence on what the choice comes out as, despite what you may think, how can that have said to have been a choice? Agreed. Fair enough. It doesn't belong here anyway.
My tower of Pisa analogy is defective in the sense that yes the unusually strong wind did push the marginally stable tower over. However, you appear to not understand the epiphenomenal nature of the "mental state" as a "cause." - All of your mental states are produced by neural activity. Other neural activity produces your action. I will now attempt to make the point in a typed picture for you, using the same "N" "A" and "B" as used in the set theory and ...... to create space in the drawing only and -----> to show causal connections or: ......B..........A .....^..........^ ..../.........../ .../.........../ N .......... n Or in words the Nerve groups, "n" cause acts "A" and nerve group "N" cause Beliefs "B". (Note "Beliefs" includes all your "decisions," what you "think" were "choices," all your "thoughts." I.e. ALL your "mental states," conscious ideas, beliefs, etc are the RESULTS of more basic neural process, which are controlled by physics. As discussed in my past post for you these beliefs are CAUSED and do not cause any act or choice. In short: They are only epiphenomenal, not causal.)* This is so well established, I think you will agree. What your are (falsely) claiming is shown below: ......B -----> A .....^ ..../.........../ .../.........../ N .......... n Or at least you are claiming: ......B -----> A .....^..........^ ..../.........../ .../.........../ N .......... n But as Lipit and others have clearly shown this second alternative is not only "over determining" "A" (good mathematician that you are, you know that is not reasonable.) but is also demonstrably false as the act "A" is already being formulated in the auxiliary motor cortex, well before the belief or decision is even conscious! Please comment on the compact "set theory" version I gave earlier to show why your view is not consistent with known facts, or at least on the pictures above trying to illustrate the problems with your view that B causes A. The truth is N causes A and B has no causal power to make A. *Gazanica (spelling may be wrong) has done some very convincing work on this with "split brain" patients (People whose corpus coliseum has been cut to prevent the spread of epilepsy from one hemisphere to the other.) - It is absolutely clear that they fabricate and believe the reasons for doing what they do and decide in the half of the brain that can talk about in these cases even though they clearly made the decision because of stimuli presented to the half of he brain which can not talk and tell you why there act was chosen for entirely different reasons known both to it and the experimenter. Dan Dennet has also written a lot about this, and many psychological experiments proof it is true in normal intact brain humans also. I.e. there are "tons of facts" that prove the validity of the top diagram above instead of either of the two below it. In a typical Gazzanica split-brain experiment one scene is shown only to the side of the brain that can not talk, and the hand controlled by that side takes some action (makes a choice) based on the contents of the scene. For example, picks up a model of the tool required to help in the scene, I.e. that side of the brain makes a choice but has no communication with the other side of he brain that can talk. A entirely different scene is shown to the side of brain that can talk, at the same time, but no action or choice is required of that "speech capable side.” Then the person, who has seen the his hand move, make a selection (or choice) is asked why that tool etc was chosen. There is not the slightest hesitation for an answer. The answer will be a reasonable fabricated explanation based on the content of the scene the talking side has seen and complete believed by the speaking half of the brain as the true reason for the choice his body has made. For example, The non-speaking side is shown a snow covered walk, half shoveled and in addition to model hammers, saws etc there is a model snow shovel, which of course the hand selects or "chooses" correctly as the appropriate tool to help shovel the walk. The speaking side was shown chicken coop on a farm with barn etc. in summer instead of the snow covered walk. The reason believed and reported by the speaking side of the brain for his choice of the shovel was: "Well, I will need a shovel to clean out the barn and chicken coop." Most of what we think is the cause of the actions we take (that are caused by the nerves) are FABRICATED to be consistent with the "mental states" existing in the brain at the time of these actions. These "mental states” are not the true causes of the actions. Fortunately, the deeper , unconscious neural processes are usually makers of appropriate mental states consistent with the actions they make, so it is easy to fabricate the cause and believe it is our mental state, or desires, wish etc. but these desires of 'folk psychology' are not the real causes of the actions or choices made. To give another example: Your body needs food. Nerves you not aware of are informed of this by various “body state” sensors, such as blood sugar level sensors and many others. These “informed nerves” in the brain then do two things: (1)Make you have the mental state "I am hungry." and (2)Make you do thing you have associated with eating, such as get up and open the ice box, or look up the pizza delivery telephone number. Consciously seeing that you are getting up, opening the phone book, looking under "pizza" section in it, etc and knowing that you are in the mental state "I am hungry," you FABRICATE a false cause and effect relationship. I.e. Seeing this activity, which was actually caused by neural activity that may precede your conscious awareness of the hunger, you fabricate that it was this activity was caused by your “hungry state.” I know this seems silly to you, hard to believe, etc. but that is what a lot of evidence shows. We very often, almost always, do act consistently with our mental state beliefs, but they are not the cause. This is part of the reason why some people exhibit "compulsive behavior" even though they do not consciously want to make the acts they do. Their behavior is not in responsive to their conscious desires, or caused by it. It can not even be controlled by their conscious desires, because the true cause of their behavior is nerve activity they are not able even to be conscious of. We all work this way, but most of us seldom have any inconsistency between the acts the nerves are causing and the beliefs / wishes (mental states) these nerves are also causing, so WE PRESUME that the acts we do are caused by these mental states (wishes , desires, beliefs etc.) Have you never found your self doing something and wondered why? Or even had a hint of compulsive behavior? I have had both, even the second in slight degree and rarely.
Actually, I don't think it is a defective analogy. As to the rest of your post: do you think the fall of the tower, which also has two causes, is therefore over-determined as well? (rhetorical question only) BillyT, I think that at this point we should agree to disagree, as funkstar and I have. I am already completely aware (and unconvinced) of all of the determinism => not(FW) arguments you are presenting. In fact, my whole dislike of FW arguments is exactly that: the arguments are always exactly the same and always irrelevant IMO (or at least always arguing over what I would consider to be a common but worthless concept of FW). The universe as a whole may not be perfectly deterministically predictable, but arguments about FW certainly are! BillyT and funkstar, on a related note. It is nice to have a discussion on this forum where there are fundamental and deep disagreements on an often-contentious issue that can be acknowledged and discussed without the thread devolving into name calling and general nastiness. -Dale
I agee on this, but hope you will read my last post again because I have at least doubled its length by telling some of the evidence that shows, IMHO, your view to be very inconsistent with the known facts. Your view, as far as I know, has no evidencial support, only your strong sense that it must be true as it seems so obviously true, just the reason that earlier belief was for a Flat Earth. I hope you will respond to the point of the drawings I made for you, or the "set theory" arguement they try to show, or the emprical evidence I site, etc. or at least give something evidencial supporting your POV that your "metal states" are causal and not just epiphenomenally consistent with the true causes - unconscious neural activity - of your choices.
I reply anyway: NO, the two causes of the tower fall are sequentially linked ("soil causes lean" & "lean" causes "wind vulnerability" & "wind vulnerability" causes "wind fall") but the paths show in my drawing ("N causes "B", which causes "A" & "n causes A") are "parallel feeds" or causes of "A". That makes all the difference as "A" has two unrelated parallel cause paths, not one chain path.
BillyT, I have explicitly claimed several times now that FW is compatible with determinism i.e. "FW !=> not(deterministic)". I think I have carefully and explicitly avoided making any other claim.* Your evidence certianly does not seem to show "FW => not(deterministic)" in any way, so I don't see how it is inconsistent with my claim. You are so eager to engage me in the standard "deterministic => not(FW)" debate that you have repeatedly ignored what I am saying. We have a deep disagreement about the definition of FW; and already you are presenting evidence against (your traditional definition of) FW. I, for one, think it is premature to start talking about evidence when we don't even have a definition. -Dale * I did also claim that "not(deterministic) !=> FW" and that "I am not interested in non-deterministic FW". I didn't think you were objecting to the first and the second is simply a personal opinion.
I think at least operationally you do have and use a definition of FW. I will try to put it into words for you and you correct, or criticize it without improving it more to your liking, as you wish. Here is the definition of FW you appear to be operating on: In essence your think that you chose between alternatives (Coke or Pepsi) and this is an exercise of FW, even if (and I am not sure you do) you agree that only one of the "alternatives" (say Coke) actually is possible as the world is deterministic and the future uniquely unfolds deterministically from the prior state. (End of definition) Funkstar (I think) and I agree that in a deterministic world here is only the "Coke" alternative, not two different evolution paths in to the future, if the world is fully deterministic. (Again, I am not sure how "impossible" you consider the "Pepsi alternative" to be.) If you disagree and believe both alternatives are possible, then drop the “… even if (and …. from a prior state.” end part of the above definition I am putting in your mouth. I am trying to show / persuade you / that your conscious choice, even if it is only the choosing of the ONE available alternative, is only the BELIEF* that you consciously chose. I.e. Only the belief you chose, not your conscious choosing. The actual “choosing” happened earlier in your brain before you were even conscious of it. That is at least the neural processes that would later cause / implement the choosing act(s) were already being developed in your "pre motor cortex" 500ms before you were even conscious of the "choice" or had the belief you were choosing. Probably this unconscious neural activity that actually makes the selection was even earlier evident in your frontal cortex, if neural electrodes were there to monitor it. This is much more speculative as, unlike the clearly identifiable pre-motor cortex activity, there is no small region of the frontal cortex that can be uniquely associated with later movement of your left hand to pick up the Coke, etc. when the motor cortex itself later becomes active and moves your left hand. I think your FW position may be consistent with all the experimental evidence and with determinism if you say: “My unconscious brain chose and very shortly thereafter I consciously became aware of that choice and it seems to be and I believe it is my conscious choice as well.” Summary: I am not trying to prove to you that FW is not possible in a deterministic world (although I am very convinced of that). If you think that is what I am attempting, you have missed my point. (probably because I did not make it clear.) I am trying to show that you did not consciously chose and in fact the choice, if there was one, was made neurologically before you were conscious of it. Thus, if you effectively define FW as I think you do (Do you take very strong exception to the "definition" I gave for your FW above?) it is your unconscious body / brain, not "conscious you" that has this FW. That "unconscious FW" / "body implemented FW" probably is perfectly consistent with a fully deterministic world, but "conscious FW" is not, as it is only a belief* that you chose, not the act of choosing, which occurred earlier unconsciously. Unconscious, "body implemented FW" does not seem to me to be worth much as it is very much like the rock's FW that it exercises when it "choses" to fall. Namely, a FW that always selects exactly what the laws of physics demand it to. That is the physical body always "choses" exactly what the laws of physics compelled the atoms of the body to do and they collective cause the selection or FW of the body (or of the rock). ---------------------- *This belief is of course also just the result of other earlier neural activity.
Thanks BillyT, this is a pretty good start, and you are definitely engaging my comments here. But obviously even this operational definition still relies on the definitions of "chose" and "you". I think that all three will need to be defined simultaneously. Is "you"-unconscious sufficient or is "you"-conscious the only important "you"? How do you define "chose" in terms of purely mental or psychological states? My claim is that "FW !=> not(deterministic)" but my personal opinion (which I am not claiming) is that "FW => deterministic". In other words, the universe as a whole may not be deterministic, but the choices of (rational, sane, normal) human beings should be. I admit that you know the experimental evidence better than I do. I agree with you that unconscious FW does not seem very satisfying on a visceral level. We, particularly those of us who reason a lot, want our reason to be in charge. However, I would not give up yet, the definitions are still incomplete so there is room yet for careful thought about what would be satisfying. In the end, however, experimental evidence trumps satisfying every time. I would like to have a viscerally-satisfactory form of FW, but if that is not possible then I still want to have as much FW as the experimental evidence allows. So, the definition-evidence relationship is, as always in science, iterative (but I think we have made more progress already on the evidence side than on the definition side). As to the specific points of evidence you presented: the "separated hemispheres" evidence is interesting, but I think irrelevant. In other words, if you want to have an experimental test of anything then one possible result needs to verify (or not falsify) and the other result needs to falsify (or not verify). You seemed to think that the obtained result falsified FW, so what result would have verified it? On the other hand, the "pre-conscious choice" evidence seems relevant in that sense. I assume that the FW result would have been "t<0". So this kind of evidence is relevant, but I still think that the definitions need to be pinned down first. That would help to address things like "is planning to implement a choice itself a choice" and "what does a choice feel like" and "how can we measure choices (time, location, nature)" and "what is a person" and "how is a person different from their body/brain" and "what does it mean for a person to choose". -Dale
As we both, and perhaps others (including FunkStar?) are not interested in the Chance FW, CFW, illusion of FW but want GFW, perhaps we should start a thread in another forum, as Funkstar mentioned as few posts ago. If any monitor is reading and can do this, I would favor moving all the recent post to a more suitable forum. Dale, I offer you a deal: First let us agree not to speak more of "prediction", nor of "quantum uncertainty" in our discussion of free will(s). Let us assume man is just ignorant of the true hidden variables that make the universe deterministic. I.e. Current "mixed-state QM physics" is just some sort of averaging over the underlying, but unknown "pure states" actually existing in every experiment, so naturally no measurement ever results in a "mixed value." I.e. lets assume the universe really is fully deterministic. (I think you tend to think this may be the case more than me, so that and the above "forbidden words" should be agreeable to you.) If Funkstar is still with us, he may think there is noting left to discuss as a fully deterministic world for him can not have any meaningful type of FW, and I almost agree, but have already conceded that with some definition of FW, an "unconscious FW" may be consistent with a deterministic universe. I will work on clarifying the "you" or "me" or "etc." definition, (I continue to use quotes on "you" and "me" etc to indicate the hard to define item I am speaking of instead the common use of the word I, which now has appeared three times in this sentence.), if you will attempt a definition of choice (and tell me what you mean by !=> in words Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ). Unfortunately, I can not agree to the definition of "you" "me" etc. that most are operationally assuming, even if not defining. I think "I" am entirely non-material and do not even exist most of the night when my body is sleeping, only when it is dreaming or awake. I do not know exactly how the parietal region of the brain, with probably with some "calls" (like old Fortran programs made) to the frontal and memory areas, creates me in the real time simulation, which I am sure humans and many animals* make this "real time simulation," but probably without the "calls" to include a "me." I recognize some problems with my view of "me" but think they are much less than the problems of the accepted theory. - See my long essay for more discussion of this. So we also need a "you" "me" "I" etc definition that most can accept. Here is my try at that: "I" am a conscious self-perceiving activity of the brain implemented mainly in the cerebral cortex plus a neural sensory system that supplies it information. Uniquely, associated with "me" is a body, which is biologically supporting "me" and itself and generally regarded by others as "me," but most people would recognize "my" continued existence (and "I" certainly would) even major parts of that body and even some parts of my brain were removed so long as the removal did not destroy "my" ability to be conscious of "myself." For clarity, you may want to note that the "me" I subscribe to does not have the "plus a neural sensory system" part. The information the neural sensors provide is used ONLY to normally keep the "real time simulation" a reasonably faithful simulation of the current material world, which of course includes the body "I" uniquely control. (Although Jane Fonda et. al. think it is possible to get away form your body, I do not; however, I do think, as I described earlier when telling about 10second fall down hill, the real time simulation can run without bothering to create "me," while it creates my body (within it) and can control the physical body to avoid serious injury, without "me".) I.e. "I" am sort of a informational subroutine in that simulation, but in ways not well defined, "I" can control the nerves that control that body, some what like the software in a digital computer does control the state of transistors in a computer even though those transistors do not control the software in the sense that the software function could be functionally identical ever if only vacuum tubes were used or entirely differ type of "add accumulators" (jar of beans on digital scale, to give ridicules alternative) were used, etc. Perhaps more than half of humanity agrees that "I" am not material, but they have in mind the Dualism / Spirit / Soul version, which, as a physicist, I reject. My understanding of how vision works drives me to my strange POV and that is very different from the accepted "3D vision emerges from the computational transforms of 2D retinal data" version, so I am a crackpot. ---------------------------------------- *One reason why I believe "I" perceive the world created in the real time simulation and not any transform of retinal data, which is not mentioned in my long essay, is the fact that small bird fly rapidly thru a thicket of branches. Even thought the bird's retina is much closer to it brain (less propagation delay) and the information is processed in the tectum, which roughly corresponds to our thalamus, instead of being additional delayed by the thalamic synaptic diffusion of neuro-transmitters, I do not think they could avoid flying into branches if they too did not make a real time simulation by a slight forward projection (in time) of the retinal data. Thus, I think the real time simulation extends even to "bird-brained" creatures, but suspect** they are "zombies' without any "me" much like I was a "zombie" when I fell, rolled, tumbled, down a hill for about 10 seconds with no consciousness of the maneuvers I was told I made by my hired-hand witness later. **You could no longer do the experiment that follows, without going to jail, but years ago about a dozen stray dogs, which were to be disposed of, were tied on the perimeter of a circle with equal space between them, by quite short leases. One man, who was known to them and had feed some of them from the time of their capture, systematically killed them in order around the circle by beating them to death with a sledgehammer. Some of the "next to be killed dogs" even seemed happy as to see him come to them. No one can be sure what, if any, self sense or "me sense" as opposed to "zombie existence" any other creature has, including all other humans. You may just be exhibiting appropriate "pain behavior" when I hold a burning match under your arm etc. and not experiencing any pain, just lying to me when you say it hurts, etc. (Obviously I do not believe that is the case, but I can not be sure it is not.) Because of this "dog experiment" and the fact that no species of monkey and only a few of the great apes can pass the "that is me in the mirror" test I suspect a sense of self, a "me," in the real time simulation is rare. I.e. I think many animals perceive the 3D world constructed in their brains as a "real time simulation," but most are "zombies" with no sense of self or full consciousness. I am sure if I have not already offended the dog lovers (and I am one) by merely telling the "dog experiment," this statement that their dog may be an unconscious zombie should do it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Despite my typically long reply just posed, I failed to respond to this question so: I only suspect that FW (even GFW) is an illusion. Perhaps because after trying to see how it could be consistent with phyiscs (neuro-physiology etc) and failing, I came to that conclusion. Now, after becoming a crackpot on how 3D vision really works, I think GFW MAY be possible. - I do not have a firm opinion on this when thinking seriously about it. (Of course in everyday life, I know I have GFW.) So I would not say I have "falsified FW." I do think that the evidence makes a conscious FW / choice very hard to defend for some of the experimental evidence you have now read. I also know that most of the things I infact select (Your coke or Pepsi choice) were not selected because of the reasons I think I consiously used; at least many of the real reasons for "my" choice were not conscious. (Madison Ave, certainly thinks this is true also and spends millions to make subconscious associations which do influence my selecting Pepsi instead of Coke - even little details. For example, here in Brazil tha color blue has only good associations with it, but in the states there are negative associations with blue also, so here the pretty girl drinking the coke in a TV ad may be in a blue bikinie, but but it is probably red or yellow in the US.) On second part of question: As I have little confidence, onlu a hope, that GFW is real, it seems to me to be impossible to find anything that could ever verify it is real. It seem mcuh easier (as i have sometimes done) to give strong argument, if not proof tha GFW is not real,especially if one is speaking of conscious choices made of "your own free will."
Billy T, I'm poundering about a model inspired by David Bohm, which in fact requires the entire universe as we perceive it to be some kind of a "simulation". The way I understand it, he has provided the mathematical proof with what they now call "Bohmian mechanics", in which he uses the Broglie-Bohm pilote wave model of QM. I think the point is that this world of particles is guided by pilot waves, and that these pilot waves form one whole (because they MUST be nonlocal) called the Quantum potential. It is in his book "Wholeness and the implicate order" that he takes this interpretation of quantum physics a step further, into a more philosophical form. The universe is seen as something continously enfolding out of this quantum potential. He takes the hologram as an analogy. The importance of this holographic principle is also appearing in DNA research (Schempp: Replication and transcription processes in the molecular biology of gene expressions: control paradigms of the DNA quantum holographic information channel in nanobiotechnology http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=147538ef82a7e711b6c58553f16aa8df) and further research by Russian researchers Gariaev et al http://www.fractal.org/Life-Science-Technology/Peter-Gariaev.htm / wonder about the phantom dna if it has been replicated or if someone is trying to do it? I've seen no reports or comments about it in any journal.) Again, a strict reductionistic approach doesn't work. The hologram is the perfect analogy to demonstrate the relation between wholeness and the parts. The way I see it, the quantum potential is in fact the mechanism behind everything, embodying the real physics. In it, no meaning will be found. Study of the the explicate form of this quantum potential - our world, is in fact a study of concepts and symbols. What we usually call "material" and "mechanistic" is in fact the opposite! They are concepts applied to the wrong world (hologram), defining the essence of another world (quantum potential), where the mechanisms are just the total opposit of what we expect them to be(because it is based on our experience of how the hologram works). The 'duality' is rooted in our conceptions and the application of them. We are the expression of a complex underlying world of strange waves which has no meaning for us whatsoever. This enfolded expression IS a giant expression = symbol. In it, you cannot define "measurement" (at least, not they way they want it). Physically, we are all part of the same potential, so there's no real division possible. And thus, "measuring" appears to be a concept of this world - it is very much metaphysical. It also explains why the problem of mathematical formalism arises: We really cannot give meaning to this other reality. All the meaning we have is metaphysical. Even consciousness is representing the enfoldment of a certain pattern, and searching for its "mechanics" will not make us feel that we understand it. Knowing how it works is simply knowing how it works. That may be a good change for the reductionistic society in which we live, but the real change lies therein that we don't need to search for meaning because we ARE the expression and quite literally, the embodiment of it! Therefore, free will, when looked upon from a mechanical perspective in the quantum potential itself, will mean nothing to us - whether the answer is deterministic or not. The only thing that we can connect to is our own being, how we are, and act accordingly. If you act out of the concept of Free will, then you do just that. If you do not, you do not. So, this gets me to the opinion of dalespam! I knew that he said something fundamental, but there was no framework for it. It's probably chaotic, but it has made my mind very peaceful (really).
Unfortunately I think all this adds to nothing. The brain is a functioning computer, it is alive and functions without your concious input in most (or at a minimum in many) cases. What it decides is YOU making the choice based on information you gathered and stored in its memory. Your brains decision IS your decision.
