Freewill and the ability to say NO to deciding.

[Quantum Quack]

Just thinking, about the nature of freedom and freewill.
It has been a part of numerous discussion but I wonder if it is something that may be worth a bit of focus.
I am talking about the ability we humans have to refusing to decide. To decide not to decide. To choose to abstain from making choices.

There are many reasons why we may wish to do so for example "not enough information" or "all choices are inferior" to the one you hope to see in the future.
I wonder just how critical this aspect of any choice system whether that be artifical or natural intelligence is to the perception nay even the reality of freewill and freedom.

Years ago I was involved in researching the ethics associated with what has become labeled "Sophies Choice" which is based on the Book and movie of some time ago.
Essentially it is a story about how a young mother in a German Concentration Camp situation is being forced by a German soldier to decide which of her two children should live and which should die as only one would be allowed to live.

The soldier was "forcing" Sophie with the threat of all dying, to make a choice and one of her options was to refuse to choose as it was not her choice to make and for her and both her children to be executed accordingly.

I would contend that it is the ability to refuse to choose to refuse to decide until you wish to that determines the quality and scope of your freewill [ freedom to choose ]

Care to discuss?

[scheherazade]

'Choice' is a conscious decision.

Refusing to exercise that option is also a conscious decision.

The reasons for choosing or not are often very complicated. Sometimes our choice seemingly has great potential to influence an outcome while in other cases, the outcome may not be mitigated. When an outcome is perceived to be influenced by our choice, we confidently accept that we have free will. When our choices are unable to change the outcome, we become embroiled in discussion on whether free will exists or whether it is just another concept, a genetic disposition perhaps, whereby we are motivated to continue in the face of challenge.

If we accept that we have no possibility of free will it does beg the question of 'why bother', IMO.

[Quantum Quack]

'Choice' is a conscious decision.

Refusing to exercise that option is also a conscious decision.

The reasons for choosing or not are often very complicated. Sometimes our choice seemingly has great potential to influence an outcome while in other cases, the outcome may not be mitigated. When an outcome is perceived to be influenced by our choice, we confidently accept that we have free will. When our choices are unable to change the outcome, we become embroiled in discussion on whether free will exists or whether it is just another concept, a genetic disposition perhaps, whereby we are motivated to continue in the face of challenge.

If we accept that we have no possibility of free will it does beg the question of 'why bother', IMO.

I agree with what you have posted.
I guess I have made the assumption that freewill is something that can gain quality and value by the ability to NOT choose therefore granting the chooser the ability to choose. The assumption is that freewill is existant to begin with. [ and I haven't state why I feel this to be a worth while assumption - my mistake ]
In the arguements back and forth on this subject confusion often exist between two very closely related aspects. 1] freewill 2] Freedom
I believe they are very different in many respects and the distinction is needed to be carefully kept in mind as discussion will often get lost between the two.
Often freedom is to do with the amount of choice.
Yet the freedom to choose between only two choices is still freewill. If one can say they only have two alternatives to freely choose between does this equate with freedom or oppression? Yet the ability to freely choose indicates the existance of freewill.
I have in mind to draw some diagrams to clarify this point if necesssary but shall wait and see if they are necewssary... [ associated with creating artificial freewill (AI) and how you woud go about it]

In my mind a good example of the ability to not choose or more specifically the lack of ability to NOT choose is evident in the symptomology of some forms of Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder ADHD where it seems that a person suffering this condition can not stop choosing and is compelled to choose thus generating the incredible spurts of hyperactivity that eventually lead to exhaustion.[ and inevitably inappropriate choices]
as matter of interest this video as a teachers guide to ADHD

[Fraggle Rocker]

'Choice' is a conscious decision. Refusing to exercise that option is also a conscious decision.

As Rush put it in their song "Freewill":

If you decide not to choose, you still have made a choice.

[Sarkus]

'Choice' is a conscious decision.

Alternatively "choice" is merely the conscious awareness of the judgement/analysis our brain goes through and the subsequent outcome.
The outcome might be the same whether we are conscious of it or not, or our consciousness might alter the path of the analysis. But being conscious or not of a decision is not something I think we can control.

Unless you adhere to the idea of some non-material "thing" that can influence and direct matter without material causation.

When an outcome is perceived to be influenced by our choice, we confidently accept that we have free will. When our choices are unable to change the outcome, we become embroiled in discussion on whether free will exists or whether it is just another concept, a genetic disposition perhaps, whereby we are motivated to continue in the face of challenge.

That's a tad simplistic. Many people question and discuss whether we have free-will regardless of whether we are consciously aware of our "choices" affecting outcomes.

If we accept that we have no possibility of free will it does beg the question of 'why bother', IMO.

And that question begs the answer of "because we have no choice but to bother".

[kx000]

You want not to decide? I can help you with that fore I'm a great decider. I will decide for you if you fore fit that right.

[Quantum Quack]

Alternatively "choice" is merely the conscious awareness of the judgement/analysis our brain goes through and the subsequent outcome.
The outcome might be the same whether we are conscious of it or not, or our consciousness might alter the path of the analysis. But being conscious or not of a decision is not something I think we can control.

Unless you adhere to the idea of some non-material "thing" that can influence and direct matter without material causation.

That's a tad simplistic. Many people question and discuss whether we have free-will regardless of whether we are consciously aware of our "choices" affecting outcomes.

And that question begs the answer of "because we have no choice but to bother".

Sarkus, some question for you as I am recalling all your previous posts from ages ago.
A key issue that seems to be missing in the discussion is "who" the freewill belongs to. Who is exercising their ability to choose between 2 or more alternatives.
To exercise your will you make choices, one of those being not to choose, not to desicde, to wait or ignore. But at all time it is the owner [user] of the will that is exercising it.
If that owner happens to have a terribly preconditioned past does this invalidate his free use of his will?
Is he not just improvising over a set of internal and external deterministic structures?
Does he still have the freedom to choose between two possibly polarised alternatives regardless of his conditioning if he Chooses to?
I have a feeling that your approach suggest that the will is not used by a person that it is somehow aloof to being existentially "his or hers"

The root of responsibiity under most legal systems would say that indeed he does regardless of preconditioned internal determining structures.

[Quantum Quack]

You want not to decide? I can help you with that fore I'm a great decider. I will decide for you if you fore fit that right.

Sounds like you need to run for political office and try to tell the constituancy what to decide.... [chuckle] rather than the constituancy telling you as their representative what to descide. [double chuckle]

[Quantum Quack]

As Rush put it in their song "Freewill":

and I would extend it by adding: and it is the most important, as you can not function with out it being easilly availabe to you.
The ADHD video that I included above lists three key symptoms to be looked for prior to making a dsm assessment.
And all symptoms could be directly related to the child or adult not having full control over whether to choose to choose or choose not to choose. IMO

So therapy designed to strengthen the ability to resist temptation, both internal and external to mitigate compulsion is obvously what could provide some help.
Hyperactivity, Hyper impulsivity and Inattention [simp: distraction] in combinations of all three.

"to choose to not to choose" , that is the question.... qquackespeare 2012
The more I think about the more appropriate the video is to our discussion as it highlights to me at least how freewill or at least the freedom of choice is oppressed due to compulsion of temptation, which can lead to addiction if not treated early in the childs development. [ I am not a proponent for the use of medication btw ]

The fact that nearly 1 in 22 children in the USA are said to have DSM rated ADHD is staggering when you think about it on a global scale.

[kx000]

Sounds like you need to run for political office and try to tell the constituancy what to decide.... [chuckle] rather than the constituancy telling you as their representative what to descide. [double chuckle]

Haha electing someone to decide for you. I decide, and in that I will decide who the deciders are. You don't want to give up your right to decide, Quantum.

[Quantum Quack]

Which is what Marie Antionette of the French Revolution probably thought when they cut of her head... "The people have spoken!" or maybe "they just don't like cake any more..."

[Pandaemoni]

The root of responsibiity under most legal systems would say that indeed he does regardless of preconditioned internal determining structures.

While that is true, so long as imposing punishment results is a reduction of crime, and a reduction in crime is an objective, it doesn't matter whether the person punished had free will or not. It is possible that a sophisticated automaton that is designed primarily to punch people would still punch fewer people if smacked with a club every time it does so. That it would break is one obvious reason why, but it could also be running a simple program like:

Line 1: Let X=60
Line 2: Punch someone once every X minutes.
Line 3: If punished by the authorities since the last time we punched someone, Add +60 to X
Line 4: Goto Line 2

This automaton would then punch people less frequently provided it is punished after each incident. If you imagine a similar "punishing" automata exists, the two might appear to be engaged in a more thoughtful "action, reaction and further reactions" exchange than is really the case. The Puncher punches, the punisher sees this and punishes its counterpart, as direct result the puncher slows the rate at which it accosts people (but continues nonetheless). Thereafter, the punisher continues to observe and punish as and when needed and the puncher becomes increasingly slower in the commission of its bad act over time.

In short, even in a world without free will, you can imagine it being beneficial to punish bad acts. The irony is that we would only punish bad acts if our program tells us to.

[Quantum Quack]

While that is true, so long as imposing punishment results is a reduction of crime, and a reduction in crime is an objective, it doesn't matter whether the person punished had free will or not. It is possible that a sophisticated automaton that is designed primarily to punch people would still punch fewer people if smacked with a club every time it does so. That it would break is one obvious reason why, but it could also be running a simple program like:

Line 1: Let X=60
Line 2: Punch someone once every X minutes.
Line 3: If punished by the authorities since the last time we punched someone, Add +60 to X
Line 4: Goto Line 2

This automaton would then punch people less frequently provided it is punished after each incident. If you imagine a similar "punishing" automata exists, the two might appear to be engaged in a more thoughtful "action, reaction and further reactions" exchange than is really the case. The Puncher punches, the punisher sees this and punishes its counterpart, as direct result the puncher slows the rate at which it accosts people (but continues nonetheless). Thereafter, the punisher continues to observe and punish as and when needed and the puncher becomes increasingly slower in the commission of its bad act over time.

In short, even in a world without free will, you can imagine it being beneficial to punish bad acts. The irony is that we would only punish bad acts if our program tells us to.

oh there is no doubt that "punishment " adds negative value to the "preconditioned internal determining structures" of a person, but I fail to see how it relates to the issue of choosing not to choose, or freewill.

Care to explain a little more?

[kx000]

Which is what Marie Antionette of the French Revolution probably thought when they cut of her head... "The people have spoken!" or maybe "they just don't like cake any more..."

We should do this thing where the most apt people are in charge of the less apt people.

[Sarkus]

Sarkus, some question for you as I am recalling all your previous posts from ages ago.
A key issue that seems to be missing in the discussion is "who" the freewill belongs to. Who is exercising their ability to choose between 2 or more alternatives.

My personal view is that the free-will is a pattern of activity on the same phenomenal level as consciousness, and in fact is part and parcel of that consciousness.
Part of this is because I struggle to see how one could be "conscious" if one was not exercising their "free-will"... without doing so the consciousness is just an "after-the-event" observer of the zombie in which it resides. But I admit that this is an argument from incredulity.

To answer your question, the free-will belongs very much to the consciousness who exercises it... even if that exercising is nothing more than a perception (i.e. an illusion) covering the probabilistically deterministic structure that resides beneath.

Those of us who consider consciousness to be similarly just a perception of activity that is structured and acts in a certain way - i.e. a mere illusion of a "non-material" guiding force - at least those like me, do not consider it possible for that consciousness to perceive the workings at a lower level - i.e. our consciousness is irreducible as far as consciously perceiving it goes... at a lower level it is no longer "consciousness".
So it is for free-will... it only exists (even as an illusion) at that level.

If that owner happens to have a terribly preconditioned past does this invalidate his free use of his will?

No.

The root of responsibiity under most legal systems would say that indeed he does regardless of preconditioned internal determining structures.

I would agree - unless it can be argued (legally) that his capacity to make decisions is medically diminished. In which case I am not sure how that lies legally.

[scheherazade]

Alarm goes off. Automatic flailing until disturbing noise stops.

Choice: Get up/ Don't get up? Work Day. Get up.
Choice: Coffee or Tea? Unless directed otherwise, hubby makes coffee for wifey. Coffee it is.
Choice: Cream &/or sugar? Sugar only on graveyard shift or flavored coffee. Cream, no sugar.
Choice: Internet or book? Need to check email anyway. Internet it is.
Choice: Chess or Science forums? Chess first. Came up with a strategy while asleep.
Choice: Which Science forum of 4? Read only the two slower ones, then Sciforums.
Choice: Which thread? Scroll down new posts until something looks interesting....

All those decisions......I'm exhausted already and haven't even finished my coffee.

Originally posted by Quantum Quack
In my mind a good example of the ability to not choose or more specifically the lack of ability to NOT choose is evident in the symptomology of some forms of Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder ADHD where it seems that a person suffering this condition can not stop choosing and is compelled to choose thus generating the incredible spurts of hyperactivity that eventually lead to exhaustion.[ and inevitably inappropriate choices]

I watched the video and it does raise awareness of whether or not 'choice' is even an option for many. Given that ADHD is quite pervasive in the population, it also raises the question of whether this is within the range of 'normal' for our species and it is merely our perception that it is undesirable because it challenges our protocol for cookie cutter stereotypes? (As example, we class many plants as weeds because we do not consider them 'economically viable' yet many of these weeds have nutritional and medicinal value, among others. Our inability to patent or make a quick buck does not detract from the intrinsic value of these plants.)

There are many situations which can and do impede the ability of an individual to choose/not choose or to act upon the decision. Many of these have ethical challenges attached and collectively, we have not yet been able to come to terms with many of them. (Topics for another thread. No wish to derail this one.)

In the observation that we have no choice in regard to when, where and to whom we are born, our attributes and potential equally enigmatic, the whole question of our freewill and/or freedom to choose very quickly becomes diffused as it integrates with actions/reactions of every other sentient being on the planet, as and where trajectories may intersect.

(Must be good coffee this morning.)

[Quantum Quack]

"Alarm goes off. Automatic flailing until disturbing noise stops."
Choose not to choose whether to get out of bed or sleep in.
Choose not to choose so that you can think of the best choice to choose.
Choose not to choose so that you can work out when would be the best time to get out of bed.
End result : non-impusive decision of better quality thus better choice.

If No choice not to choose, no actual choice is freely available.
You must choose but which one,
no time to think,
no time to invest in the decison,
End result: impulsive action with out due regard to alternatives.
No freewill...
Include in the scenario, the abilityto choose which thought [idea] you may wish to think about and if you can't choose not to choose or at least delay it so you can think about which thought [idea] to think about, imagine how devestating it would be to your behaviour in all aspects of you life...

Some one say Coffee!!......white 3 thanks

[Gustav]

that libet guy had a notion of "free won't"

[scheherazade]

that libet guy had a notion of "free won't"

Very interesting link, Gustav. Thank you for posting it.

That our veto is the only 'true' act of free will we are capable of exercising is an interesting premise, yet a rather logical one to me. We have been preconditioned to preserve 'life' by means of conserving our own energy in large part when confronted with the many options and challenges that confront us. In most cases, we will be in constant peripheral awareness of our surrounds and prepared to engage in the most suitable manner for the circumstances without actively being aware of deciding upon a course of action.

Most often, I just 'go with the flow' within reasonable parameters save when I become aware of a conflicting option at which time I must actually engage fully to make my 'choice'.

[Quantum Quack]

Very interesting link, Gustav. Thank you for posting it.

That our veto is the only 'true' act of free will we are capable of exercising is an interesting premise, yet a rather logical one to me. We have been preconditioned to preserve 'life' by means of conserving our own energy in large part when confronted with the many options and challenges that confront us. In most cases, we will be in constant peripheral awareness of our surrounds and prepared to engage in the most suitable manner for the circumstances without actively being aware of deciding upon a course of action.

Most often, I just 'go with the flow' within reasonable parameters save when I become aware of a conflicting option at which time I must actually engage fully to make my 'choice'.

Years ago I was writing a book titled "The power of NO" and the art of voluntary living... as an aid to empower parents with the tools to enhance their childrens ability [self-esteem] to successfully get through the "puberty blues" phenonema. [re: teenage suicide]
And so I agree that it is indeed the power of veto even if it means taking ones own life that provides us with the ability to exercise independent thinking and living.

If one is faced with living by compulsion as shown in the issue of ADHD [ extreme ] then one is severely oppressed by those compulsions.
One of the sometimes hidden lessons of the "Buddha" in his teachings is that the freedom from compulsion [ attachment ] affords us greater power over our lives and existance.
The use of meditation and asceticism is a major tool in learning how to deal with "compulsion". [attachment]
It is the purpose of this thread though to focuss on one particular "veto" and that is the decision NOT to choose. The decision to delay making a choice so that a better more informed choice can be made or not made at all.
And how this ability to veto relates to the philosophical nature of "freewill".

An example I was thinking of to enhance the distinction between "freedom" and "freewill"...was:
Imagine a person was locked up in a small room with no windows, and all the same colour. No discernable difference, except the walls and ceilings indicating volume.

No apparent alternatives available, no ability to suicide or harm himself or any one else.

Is his freewill compromised?
as distinct to his freedom.....