This statement is deflecting my question.
I don't mean to elevate things beyond simple discussion (and I'm getting things off topic). I'll leave it there, apologies.
Predeterminism Or Free Will?
- Thread starter j654dgj7
- Start date
This statement is deflecting my question.
I don't mean to elevate things beyond simple discussion (and I'm getting things off topic). I'll leave it there, apologies.
Innovation does not happen without consciousness. The fact that our solar system is perfectly balanced to support life wouldn't be called innovation for example and it's a lot more complicated and unlikely than anything clever that an animal does.
The key that I feel a LOT of the discussion on this topic could use more mention of is that free will seems to be an intuition, not a precise logical claim. So falsifying some version like "if we rewound time, could you have picked chocolate instead of vanilla" may not be the most meaningful thing, because for one thing, that we have a sense of choice is intimately tied to there being a sense of a difference between the future and the past (even if the equations of physics may be reversible).
The fact is that the equations of physics only show how quantities relate -- there are some brute facts from the outset that we may have to accept, such as that our universe had initial conditions which would force time-flow to "essentially" be unidirectional. I think this is the leading idea or one of them.
I personally think that people should consider what freedom would really mean (i.e. instead of falsifying free will of some peculiar variety, try to find out what the intuition IS and what it isn't, what it can and can't be): if you really were spontaneous, you would not have a well-defined nature, i.e. a sense of identity. Spontaneity aka randomness is not what people want -- they want an identity (meaning some predetermination from genes as a starting point from which you can shape yourself)...but also an element of choice. This is achieved by the divide between a conscious and unconscious brain -- your brain certainly determines all your actions, but part of that iswhat you feel is your ego, i.e. the center of your conscious identity.
Most free will doubters essentially ant to say that the conscious vs unconscious distinction is less fundamental than the laws of physics, as the distinction is a property of biology. That is, once particles assemble in a certain position, they will become conscious. As everything just obeys these mechanistic laws, our ego and sense of choice is secondary (although compatibalists suggest that on a higher biological level we as good as have choice, even if on the fundamental level, choice is not part of the theory)
I think the real answer to this question requires a full understanding of consciousness and how the way we see the laws of physics relates to it. If we can truly say the laws of physics in some sense are a higher truth than our consciousness, rather than being emergent properties of it, then sure. However, amidst the many woolly claims of quantum mysticism, one can't overlook that our ability to perceive sense data is HEAVILY influenced by our consciousness -- why would there be such a divide between our conscious intuitions of physical reality and quantum laws otherwise?
In my view, perhaps instead of trying to explain consciousness using quantum physics, we should be putting effort at least somwhat into understanding why conscious systems in our sense are unable to "directly intuit" quantum physics.
A conscious entity like ourselves seems unable even in principle to operate with the view that our future is determined just as surely as our past (both free will and causality come under fire under certain views of physics, not just free will, since we infer all our physics -- even stuff that is abstract like the quantum wavefunction -- from experiment). That is, one must be detached from a system in order to predict its behavior, and the very definition of consciousness (although we hardly have a scientifically rigorous one) would seem to include some sense of involvement/participation in the time-evolution of the body/brain system. The same issue as in quantum physics, namely we can't measure the system withotu disturbing it, is in a way present here.
What this does is "enable" our intuition from above, namely that we have a certain nature (given by our brain structure), but that we're "directing" the outcomes of that nature -- the conscious/unconscious divide seems essential to this sensation, as well as to the sensation that we simply must choose, not just "let things happen as they are predetermined."
Yet we also know that all seems to be a product of physics in the end. That is, physicalism seems preferable to dualism.
I consider all this mysterious, but if I had to bet, the answer might have to do somewhat with the link between consciousness and the concept of something "participating in time." After all, that is what prevents our prediction of our future -- that our involvement in our own past-present-future continuum prevents us from making a detached prediction, as the very act of trying to predict modifies the future.
My view is a blend of believing there are ways we can understand this stuff much better, but I see there being an element of uncertainty remaining.I'm far from an expert on these topics, but I've thought/worried about tehm before.
Suffice it to say for most of society's needs, naive physicalism and compatibilism seems a fine combo so you can just go on with your life.
But more conceptually, I personally don't know if physicalism suffices. It's certainly better than naive dualism, and for all practical purposes probably the best theory we have...but I'm feeling like we can't escape some metaphysical nonsense when free will and consciousness are concerned.
My goal in all these things is to present what I find is the most reasonable view, I find rigid logicality doesn't work because it refuses to acknowledge the fuzzier domains. I think ethics, metaphysics, consciousness, free will are very very fundamentally hard to subsume in a physicalist view. At the very least, we might come to the conclusion that physicailsm is a full theory of the universe, but it fulfills only our truth-needs and not our pragmatic needs---a distinction between pragmatic reasoning and truth might persist nonetheless.
The fact is that the equations of physics only show how quantities relate -- there are some brute facts from the outset that we may have to accept, such as that our universe had initial conditions which would force time-flow to "essentially" be unidirectional. I think this is the leading idea or one of them.
I personally think that people should consider what freedom would really mean (i.e. instead of falsifying free will of some peculiar variety, try to find out what the intuition IS and what it isn't, what it can and can't be): if you really were spontaneous, you would not have a well-defined nature, i.e. a sense of identity. Spontaneity aka randomness is not what people want -- they want an identity (meaning some predetermination from genes as a starting point from which you can shape yourself)...but also an element of choice. This is achieved by the divide between a conscious and unconscious brain -- your brain certainly determines all your actions, but part of that iswhat you feel is your ego, i.e. the center of your conscious identity.
Most free will doubters essentially ant to say that the conscious vs unconscious distinction is less fundamental than the laws of physics, as the distinction is a property of biology. That is, once particles assemble in a certain position, they will become conscious. As everything just obeys these mechanistic laws, our ego and sense of choice is secondary (although compatibalists suggest that on a higher biological level we as good as have choice, even if on the fundamental level, choice is not part of the theory)
I think the real answer to this question requires a full understanding of consciousness and how the way we see the laws of physics relates to it. If we can truly say the laws of physics in some sense are a higher truth than our consciousness, rather than being emergent properties of it, then sure. However, amidst the many woolly claims of quantum mysticism, one can't overlook that our ability to perceive sense data is HEAVILY influenced by our consciousness -- why would there be such a divide between our conscious intuitions of physical reality and quantum laws otherwise?
In my view, perhaps instead of trying to explain consciousness using quantum physics, we should be putting effort at least somwhat into understanding why conscious systems in our sense are unable to "directly intuit" quantum physics.
A conscious entity like ourselves seems unable even in principle to operate with the view that our future is determined just as surely as our past (both free will and causality come under fire under certain views of physics, not just free will, since we infer all our physics -- even stuff that is abstract like the quantum wavefunction -- from experiment). That is, one must be detached from a system in order to predict its behavior, and the very definition of consciousness (although we hardly have a scientifically rigorous one) would seem to include some sense of involvement/participation in the time-evolution of the body/brain system. The same issue as in quantum physics, namely we can't measure the system withotu disturbing it, is in a way present here.
What this does is "enable" our intuition from above, namely that we have a certain nature (given by our brain structure), but that we're "directing" the outcomes of that nature -- the conscious/unconscious divide seems essential to this sensation, as well as to the sensation that we simply must choose, not just "let things happen as they are predetermined."
Yet we also know that all seems to be a product of physics in the end. That is, physicalism seems preferable to dualism.
I consider all this mysterious, but if I had to bet, the answer might have to do somewhat with the link between consciousness and the concept of something "participating in time." After all, that is what prevents our prediction of our future -- that our involvement in our own past-present-future continuum prevents us from making a detached prediction, as the very act of trying to predict modifies the future.
My view is a blend of believing there are ways we can understand this stuff much better, but I see there being an element of uncertainty remaining.I'm far from an expert on these topics, but I've thought/worried about tehm before.
Suffice it to say for most of society's needs, naive physicalism and compatibilism seems a fine combo so you can just go on with your life.
But more conceptually, I personally don't know if physicalism suffices. It's certainly better than naive dualism, and for all practical purposes probably the best theory we have...but I'm feeling like we can't escape some metaphysical nonsense when free will and consciousness are concerned.
My goal in all these things is to present what I find is the most reasonable view, I find rigid logicality doesn't work because it refuses to acknowledge the fuzzier domains. I think ethics, metaphysics, consciousness, free will are very very fundamentally hard to subsume in a physicalist view. At the very least, we might come to the conclusion that physicailsm is a full theory of the universe, but it fulfills only our truth-needs and not our pragmatic needs---a distinction between pragmatic reasoning and truth might persist nonetheless.
Last edited:
Most of our so called choices are made without the knowledge or consent of consciousness. We even make up reasons for these choices after the fact and believe our own bullshit explanation.
the real reasons are to do with instinct and evolved responses to stimuli which we rationalise afterwards as being choices based on valid reasons.
Even scarier than this is the fact that we don't have a choice about what we want to choose. We choose based on how we feel about the choices available. But we don't choose how we feel. We are manipulated into choosing one way or another by some other part of our brain that has already decided for us
free will truly is a delusion
the real reasons are to do with instinct and evolved responses to stimuli which we rationalise afterwards as being choices based on valid reasons.
Even scarier than this is the fact that we don't have a choice about what we want to choose. We choose based on how we feel about the choices available. But we don't choose how we feel. We are manipulated into choosing one way or another by some other part of our brain that has already decided for us
free will truly is a delusion
Well the thing is I seriously doubt we can explain our decisions as reducible to instinct - our wants definitely involve the higher cognitive rational decision-making faculties. At best we can say our decisions are reducible to elementary particle physics, which can subsume both instinct and rational decision-making in a sense.
But basically the real mystery is that it's not as if our brain decides for us, and we just act out that -- I seriously would doubt the conscious part of the brain is that insignificant, and in fact even experiments that try to show the power of the unconscious brain to "make decisions for us" admit that if we are then told of what choices were prepared for us, we can change them -- plus, some decisions are made on immediate stimulus, so it seems implausible that we could have just had a decision prepared for us. What mechanistic views REALLY mean is that when you are deciding, your brain is deciding. when you are consciously thinking, a totally parallel mechanistic portrait is available.
there's no "you just decide what your brain told you to" -- it's more like YOU DECIDING = your brain deciding.
The real source of the sensation of freedom seems to be that even if you supposedly knew the positions of all the particles in your brain, and tried to use that to predict your future, that very act would affect the future. That is, you cannot be detached from your own time history. You can be so with nearly any other system, but not your own brain, because hey, you ARE it.
I think the best way to see this is that the laws of physics are all static, unchanging mathematical equations, yet empirical reality seems impossible to detach from the dynamic element.
But basically the real mystery is that it's not as if our brain decides for us, and we just act out that -- I seriously would doubt the conscious part of the brain is that insignificant, and in fact even experiments that try to show the power of the unconscious brain to "make decisions for us" admit that if we are then told of what choices were prepared for us, we can change them -- plus, some decisions are made on immediate stimulus, so it seems implausible that we could have just had a decision prepared for us. What mechanistic views REALLY mean is that when you are deciding, your brain is deciding. when you are consciously thinking, a totally parallel mechanistic portrait is available.
there's no "you just decide what your brain told you to" -- it's more like YOU DECIDING = your brain deciding.
The real source of the sensation of freedom seems to be that even if you supposedly knew the positions of all the particles in your brain, and tried to use that to predict your future, that very act would affect the future. That is, you cannot be detached from your own time history. You can be so with nearly any other system, but not your own brain, because hey, you ARE it.
I think the best way to see this is that the laws of physics are all static, unchanging mathematical equations, yet empirical reality seems impossible to detach from the dynamic element.
Aether said:
I'm not sure how to ask this, but in what sense do you agree that our choices are based more on instincts than reason/conscious deliberation?
This is a claim unrelated to the free will/lack of it. Even if all our choices were based on conscious reasoning, to the extent we accept a physicalist view, all those conscious decision-making processes ultimately *are* physical processes in the brain.
The only acceptable free will doubting that I've seen comes from views that say even time's flow in an apparent definite direction, and thus the notion of causality, come under fire based on our understanding of physics.
Last edited:
I actually didn't read his post that carefully earlier. I see now that I am not in agreement with it. Apologies, I have misrepresented myself on this issue.
I suppose what you deem "acceptable" must be very important. Chill the fuck out.
Aether said:
Well I try to be reasonable with my view of what constitutes acceptable -- it isn't that I think someone ought to accept it because I say it, so much as because it hopefully makes sense to them too (and if not, I am happy to discuss).
And if you look at my posts on this topic, I am more encouraging seeing many sides of the issue than pushing an opinion -- so if I am non-chill it is about those who themselves are non-chill and somewhat bigotedly opinionated on the issue. Assuming you aren't one of those, my stance towards you is chill lol.
I mean, the reason I asked you at all is you'd previously written this
which seems to be a stance very compatible with the spirit of my own.
We have two modes of thinking. Fast and slow. Fast is the automatic responses to stimuli. Intuition, muscle memory etc. Slow is the the voice in your head. The bit you think of as you.
The main purpose of slow is to explain things rationally. Slow takes far too long to make most decisions and we would be continually injuring ourselves if it was in charge of moving about. We are in fast mode the vast majority of the time.
even when in slow thinking mode we are highly influenced by decisions made by fast. We look at previous decisions made by us, assume them to be good decisions and base our next choice on that.
studies have shown that we have thousands of strange biases and peoples allegedly rational choices can be heavily modified by irrelevant stimuli.
Do you always do what you wish you'd do? Do you always not do what you wish you wouldn't? I'm guessing no
The main purpose of slow is to explain things rationally. Slow takes far too long to make most decisions and we would be continually injuring ourselves if it was in charge of moving about. We are in fast mode the vast majority of the time.
even when in slow thinking mode we are highly influenced by decisions made by fast. We look at previous decisions made by us, assume them to be good decisions and base our next choice on that.
studies have shown that we have thousands of strange biases and peoples allegedly rational choices can be heavily modified by irrelevant stimuli.
Do you always do what you wish you'd do? Do you always not do what you wish you wouldn't? I'm guessing no
People can consciously alter their past behaviors through reflection and they can also influence future decisions by hypothesizing about particular situations, so what you say is not entirely the case. We do not always assume our past decisions to be the best unless we refuse to consider them.
I'm not saying consciousness has no say at all. Of course it does. I'm saying it has far, far less say than 99% of people think.
If our brains were a business, consciousness would not be the chief executive. It would be a consultant hired out from time to time. The vast majority of goings on happen without the consultants knowledge or consent.
The boundaries are blurred though of course. Instinct affects logic and logic affects instinct.
If our brains were a business, consciousness would not be the chief executive. It would be a consultant hired out from time to time. The vast majority of goings on happen without the consultants knowledge or consent.
The boundaries are blurred though of course. Instinct affects logic and logic affects instinct.
Last edited:
While the degree of role of conscious vs unconscious processes is most certainly interesting, I would say it is probably not all that related to free will --even if conscious, rational decision-making were largely responsible for our decisions, that is still scientifically describable as particles doing something or another.
If we were as instinctual as a lizard or as consciously deliberate as the most deliberate person, that would do nothing at all to change that all those processes are described by physics.
It really is worth noting that the same tactics one can use to doubt free will being more than a non-fundamental (i.e. biological) intuition rather than present in the laws of physics can be used to doubt things like causality, the unidirectional flow of time, and so on. One could start arguing for placing causal arrows in any direction one wishes -- why say the past caused the future if the future is equally determined, and hence, equally "past" in a sense?
Basically even if free will's sensation, which I think is a product at least in part of the conscious/unconscious divide, is a property of biology, it is not one of those things I can see us easily transcending -- just as I think we will have to look for genuine experimental evidence before we call something physics, even if our physics is quickly leaving the realm of the traditionally observable cause-effect phenomena into a more abstract, mathematical description.
My current best view of all this is that we need to see ethics and free will and such things as fuzzier but still hard to do without intuitions, and simply see a third person, scientific description as the most precise description of nature we can have. Every conscious process should have a mechanistic description. But, without transcending consciousness itself, I can't imagine getting rid of things like an element of cause-effect and time and free will remaining at least as intuitions.
There are of course Buddhist meditation techniques which try to transcend standard conscious functioning, which probably purport to produce more of a continuum between empirical phenomena and consciousness...without a self/outside divide... that's the only sort of thing I see available. That involves subscribing to a metaphysics, which not everyone will feel good about. Short of that, we have to commit to a more practical, less truth-oriented take.
If we were as instinctual as a lizard or as consciously deliberate as the most deliberate person, that would do nothing at all to change that all those processes are described by physics.
It really is worth noting that the same tactics one can use to doubt free will being more than a non-fundamental (i.e. biological) intuition rather than present in the laws of physics can be used to doubt things like causality, the unidirectional flow of time, and so on. One could start arguing for placing causal arrows in any direction one wishes -- why say the past caused the future if the future is equally determined, and hence, equally "past" in a sense?
Basically even if free will's sensation, which I think is a product at least in part of the conscious/unconscious divide, is a property of biology, it is not one of those things I can see us easily transcending -- just as I think we will have to look for genuine experimental evidence before we call something physics, even if our physics is quickly leaving the realm of the traditionally observable cause-effect phenomena into a more abstract, mathematical description.
My current best view of all this is that we need to see ethics and free will and such things as fuzzier but still hard to do without intuitions, and simply see a third person, scientific description as the most precise description of nature we can have. Every conscious process should have a mechanistic description. But, without transcending consciousness itself, I can't imagine getting rid of things like an element of cause-effect and time and free will remaining at least as intuitions.
There are of course Buddhist meditation techniques which try to transcend standard conscious functioning, which probably purport to produce more of a continuum between empirical phenomena and consciousness...without a self/outside divide... that's the only sort of thing I see available. That involves subscribing to a metaphysics, which not everyone will feel good about. Short of that, we have to commit to a more practical, less truth-oriented take.
Last edited: