The One where Riggerjack schools brute on Free Will

[bryan]

so, in brute's mind (<- haha), if human consciousness exists, it must be a composite phenomenon, just like life. hard to even define, but humans know it when they see it. every single defining feature of it seems to disappear under scrutiny (such quantum!).

now the big question, to brute, is: is there even any free will in the lying, history-rewriting human mind at all? or are humans just automata that follow relatively deterministic patterns, and tell themselves a story to feel good about themselves, as some evolutionary quirk?

I side with BRUTE here.. life/consciousness/free will is just an emergent thing, and it is still ultimately a slave to physics, mathematics.

Though I think "free will" is a real thing, a human thing, a construction. But it is a real thing (as real as ethics, psychology, language, etc). The capability to do self-modification or feed back into your own systems to achieve some outcome that you pre-conceived ought not be taken lightly. The self is also part of the larger system and it can fiddle with the I/O there as well.

Do we believe there is a distinction between strong/weak emergence? Or is strong emergence just the bundle of things we can't explain yet, and destined to be reclassified? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence ... _emergence.

It seems pedantic to distinguish free will or no free will of humans (or animals, computers).

Humans (emergent automata) live in a system of emergent properties emerged from other emergent properties (emergence all the way down?). It gives us plenty of unpredictability in our day to day to the point that I am not practically motivated to draw any actionable conclusions out of knowing that it's all just quantum physics in the end.

[BRUTE]

wow, talking about opening a cylindrical metal container of worms.. Weak vs. Strong emergence.

brute likes this quote:

The ability to reduce everything to simple fundamental laws does not imply the ability to start from those laws and reconstruct the universe. The constructionist hypothesis breaks down when confronted with the twin difficulties of scale and complexity. At each level of complexity entirely new properties appear. Psychology is not applied biology, nor is biology applied chemistry. We can now see that the whole becomes not merely more, but very different from the sum of its parts.

applied to the free will discussion, this seems like a good compromise between brute's belief in determinism and the human perception that humans have some experience of free will.

it also opens amazing possibilities to the "all the way down" idea. atoms, quarks, quantums.. whatever comes next (brute knows little of subatomic physics). does there have to be a tiniest bit? if brute thinks of these levels as points on a dimension of "abstraction" or something.. why would there be an end to this dimension in either direction?

emergence all the way down

whoa

[Riggerjack]

Well, despite being named in the title of the thread, I have very little to contribute that isn't already here.

This

1)in the beginning there were inanimate "beings" (like viruses)
2)then they developed some kind of "this is my body and I need to move it away from pain" mechanisms, a very simple biological machine
3)more little biological machines were added that helped (don't go into the fire, don't go into the water, run from loud noises). like a collection of microcontrollers. at this point, everything is still unconscious, mechanical reaction.
4)at one point, it made evolutionary sense to build a "software platform" on top of these microcontrollers. disadvantages: uses vastly more energy and needs to be "programmed" (=trained with experiences). advantages: much more flexible, improvements in the animal can now be inspired by experience instead of by genetic natural selection. much faster improvement possible. think days instead of generations.
5)later, it made evolutionary sense to develop certain diagnostic functions, to allow an animal to be aware of its body and mental states (to a certain degree, humans are certainly not aware of ALL their bodily or mental states).
6)then, this diagnostic center somehow became convinced it was in control. and to a certain degree it is in control, but it's very hard to even tell the different systems of the mind apart. (this is the "invention" of consciousness)
7)much later (basically 19xx), it can be scientifically shown that almost any of the things humans think proves their consciousness can be proven to be false.

Is what I meant by kegger science. Yes, it all makes sense, but it takes a lot for granted. It could all be true but we just have no way to test it yet.

For an example of how far logic can take you with bad assumptions, read some of CS Lewis's non fiction. So, no, I don't find the logic convincing.

It could be that I am overly sensitive on the subject of agency. I believe in the power of agency to save people like other men believe in the saving power of Jesus Christ. So perhaps I over react to people claiming science shows there is no free will.

My bad.

[BRUTE]

does Riggerjack think that his belief in human agency (or shall brute say HUMAN ACTION) is caused by libertarianism? brute has encountered many libertarians and especially randroids that can't stand the idea of determinism, because their entire ethical system is based on free will (or so they think).

(note: this is of course neither proof nor disproof of determinism or free will. in all fairness, brute thinks it highly likely that his belief in determinism is reverse-caused by his laziness and nihilist ideology.)

[Dragline]

Yeah, the usual back-drop to this "debate" as I've seen it ad nauseum on the interwebs is a replay of the old conflict between the positivist movement and socialism, which are based on scientism or strict reductionism, on one side, with praxeology and von Mises libertarianism on the other, which are based on Aristotlian notions of free will.

The goal seems to be more to support political ideologies than anything else, and both sides seem to presuppose that the accumulation of knowledge stopped around 1950. Most can't even articulate where their ideas come from. So it ends up being a bad and hidden assumptions dreck-fest.

I credit the posters above for advancing into modern times, and recognizing the question itself assumes a false dichotomy. Most true believers on both sides shut down into cognitive dissonance (pay no attention to that new information!) once complexity theory, emergence and the last 30 years of neuroscience are put on the table. The strict determinists/reductionists suffer the c-d the most because of their belief that they are "more sciency and less religiousy", and thereby intellectually superior, than the free will crowd.

[enigmaT120]

I wish I had something clever to add, but all I get is that it feels like free will to me, so I'll act like it is.

Why didn't they have funny utube videos when I was in college?

[Dragline]

I wish I had something clever to add, but all I get is that it feels like free will to me, so I'll act like it is.

Why didn't they have funny utube videos when I was in college?

The clever part to add is that this is a consequence of the emergent property of the human brain known as "theory of mind", which is programmed in from birth and has been found in human babies. (Emergent means that it cannot be predicted or "found" through any direct study of the brain itself, yet its existence is undeniable from observation.) "Theory of mind" compels us to project agency or thought patterns on other humans, animals and even objects that we see acting in a certain way or even appearing a certain way. It is almost uniquely a human trait -- whether animals possess it at all, and to what extent, is still a matter of great conflict and controversy among experimenters.

Theory of mind leads to the very real perception/experience/feeling in our mind's eye that any actions taken by an observed actor are taken through the volition (or free will) of the observed actor, or at least are not connected with the observer, and also may lead us to act preemptively based on those observations. For human beings to behave successfully in groups and form societies, this perception and mutual projection must be accounted for and tends to be an important building block of interpersonal relationships and societal rules, including law, especially as it governs personal responsibility for one's actions.

[daylen]

Anyone know any good books on emergence?

[Dragline]

In this context, read this one: https://www.amazon.com/Whos-Charge-Free ... 0061906115 and this article: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140403 ... -the-mind/

In broader contexts, read Mark Buchanan's "Ubiquity" and "Forecast", P. Bak's "How Nature Works" and Beinhocker's "Origin of Wealth." Best general resource on complexity theory is probably the Sante Fe Institute, although its not that user-friendly: http://santafe.edu/

Some of the nonsensical ravings of my own lunatic mind, including other references:

http://www.prospectingmimeticfractals.c ... -lens.html

http://www.prospectingmimeticfractals.c ... c-fractals

[Riggerjack]

does Riggerjack think that his belief in human agency (or shall brute say HUMAN ACTION) is caused by libertarianism? brute has encountered many libertarians and especially randroids that can't stand the idea of determinism, because their entire ethical system is based on free will (or so they think).

I do self identify as libertarian, but I acknowledge the weaknesses of libertarian thinking on several subjects ( pollution comes to mind)

No, I don't believe in agency to support my political philosophy. As I've mentioned in other areas here, I come from the bottom social strata. 3 uncles are lifers, been homeless as a kid, several times. Blah, blah.

I'm now pretty firmly entrenched in the middle class. And the biggest difference between the two is the proportion of people who believe in agency.

I cannot count the number of people who, when I was young, pushed the "you have to have an in" angle for why better jobs, Union jobs, or other opportunities were not available to my kind. And how many times, I saw people sabotage friends and family, justifying the action with,"kicking out the ladder hurts less if he doesn't have as far to fall.

In the middle class, determinism, and other arguments to rob folks of agency, like:
"the man is keeping us down"
Opportunities just aren't there
The system is set up to screw the little guy
The middle class is stagnant
All the good jobs have gone overseas
Etc ad nauseum
Don't really do much damage. In the middle class, you have both storylines, and people will choose that which fits their needs.

These same storylines do real damage at the bottom. Our poor have it better, materially than the poor anywhere else. But the real problem with being poor in America is too much time, with too much unavailable to you, with the knowledge that nothing will get better, ever.

It is that certainty that I am fighting by pushing agency.

[Toska2]

I'm reading my deterministic tarot cards. They say everybody in this thread will give me $50.

[Dragline]

They said to forget the $50 and complete the languishing month-old blog post. So I did:

http://www.prospectingmimeticfractals.c ... n-fractals

[Ego]

These same storylines do real damage at the bottom. Our poor have it better, materially than the poor anywhere else. But the real problem with being poor in America is too much time, with too much unavailable to you, with the knowledge that nothing will get better, ever.

It is that certainty that I am fighting by pushing agency.

Rigger, you don't like the what it would mean if we live in a deterministic world. The fact that you don't like it is no argument against the truth of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences

[Toska2]

But then to what degree does this happen? A loss means it was once there.

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shot ... way-to-sin

[BRUTE]

behavior change doesn't mean old behavior was free will?

[Ego]

But then to what degree does this happen? A loss means it was once there.

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shot ... way-to-sin

The me who decided to organize this sentence in this precise way is the sum of my genetics plus all the things that happened the me up to this point. Losing one of my social filters does not represent a loss of free will. It represents either a loss of an innate filter (nature) or, more likely, one that I learned over my years operating in the world as I experienced it (nurture).

[Riggerjack]

Rigger, you don't like the what it would mean if we live in a deterministic world. The fact that you don't like it is no argument against the truth of it.

What truth? It's a comforting storyline. It helps people feel superior to others because it "feels scientifical". Much like free will. Again, just a storyline, because we have nothing better. My point wasn't that we CAN prove free will, or that we can't. It is that scientifical sounding, plus quantum woo is no more valid than feelings of free will.

We don't know. There isn't even much evidence either way. Prefences are just that.

[Ego]

Where is the quantum woo? If anything, the quantum woo comes in with the idea of free will. Where is the evidence showing free will? If you are saying something exists with no evidence of its existence, then woo. You're they one saying free will exists.

[Spartan_Warrior]

I've had this discussion somewhere recently, not sure which thread, but despite the typical conflation of the two, IMO there is a significant and important difference between fatalism and determinism. Indeed, it is this difference that allows me to simultaneously hold both of these beliefs with no incoherence: determinism is true and free will is false, and yet what I do today determines my future.

It is my opinion that folks who disagree with this--those who believe that determinism provides "a convenient excuse to fail/not try", whether they think that's good or not--simply have not fully grokked the meaning of determinism, which is centered on causality. If you think what you do today has no effect on tomorrow, that is incompatible with determinism, almost oppositional to it. That the events of today are the causal inputs of tomorrow is just as necessarily entailed by determinism as the fact that the events of today were caused by the events of yesterday.

[BRUTE]

brute remembers this discussion as well.

now in the context of what was brought up earlier with regard to emergence, brute would suggest that "fatalism" in Spartan_Warriors sense is the idea that there is determinism but no (strong) emergence - so that the future can be exactly predicted. whereas determinism in the sense brute believes in it still allows for strong emergence. meaning even though brute is convinced the universe is deterministic, he has no idea what will happen in the future, because it's just too complex to extrapolate from carbon atoms.

does that sound about right to Spartan_Warrior?


@Ego:

coming from the other side here, brute could look at it this way: there is an experience that almost all humans have and mostly agree upon, and they call it free will. so far, no quantum woo.

is there room between determinism on an atomic level and this relatively high-level, observed phenomenon?

as an analogy, Ego can imagine this: brute refutes the idea of dogs, because clearly, everything's just carbon atoms. yeeeaaa, but... humans clearly experience "dogs" from time to time. maybe it makes sense to build abstract concepts that were created through many layers of strong emergence.

there are at least these layers between atoms and "free will":

biological cells
biological organs
brain/mind (very poorly understood at this point)
psychology

in a way, it's fascinating that science has an easier time understanding the fundamental building blocks (atoms), even though they're "further away" on the abstraction scale. maybe similar to how it's easier to understand bricks & mortar than complex architecture and load analysis.

ps: brute is somehow arguing for the wrong side now.