What Most People Fail to Understand about the Concept of Free Will

Why is that any more demonstrative of free will than some sort of emotional reaction? Meanwhile, I'm not convinced it's an empirical question. If something is not determined then it is random. There is no logical room for a third sort of decision making.


Sorry, I don't understand. Could you expand on this?

~~ Paul

If there is a pre-sentiment effect demonstrated, yet the subjects were able to avoid the negative photo, it would demonstrate that if a future event can affect the present, then a choice was made to avoid the future event that seemed to already happen (because if it didn't occur in the future, then how could it have an effect in the present?). If it were deterministic, how could you explain this?

If you explain this as random, then you have another problem - if it were just random, why would the presentiment effect precede the negative and not the positive? If, say, consciousness can scan the future for probable events and alert you, then with an RNG displaying photos you could have a 50/50 chance of seeing negative or positive, yet you only see the presentiment effect prior to negative photos. If you invoke some sort of EPR across time type of correlation, it may offer a way to explain some presentiment effects, but then if we look at the precognitive remote viewing from SRI then we are challenged since this explanation couldn't work in this situation. It sea as if a future event can actually be picked up in the present. And if this is the case, how could a choice be just random if that random choice in a particular direction is needed for the future event to actually occur in experience?

Further, deterministic ideas on this seem pretty irrelevant, since we know our universe fundamentally is not deterministic. At best, based on physical law, one could suggest a random choice based on quantum decision making models. We know through quantum cognition that the classical models of decision making theory do not fit the data, so it seems that those types of deterministic theories could be ruled out.

Physicists Conway and Kochen have come up with their Free Will Theorem which has something to say mathematically about our free will. Granted there is controversy over the third axiom, but nonetheless it is progress towards describing free will in a way that lends itself to possible empirical testing.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.3286

Another side to this is what David Bailey mentioned. With considering the above about quantum cognition models, free will theorem, etc to eliminate deterministic models, and we look at Gödel's incompleteness theorems and Turing's indecidability theorem, we further realize that we cannot fit this into a random model, either. There is something fundamentally different about our ability to think that cannot be mathematically modeled. The quantum cognition models are an improvement, but these models based on quantum randomness cannot get around the incompleteness and undecidability theorem.

Looking at PK experiments adds to this. If a subject has an intent to cause deviation of the output of an RNG in a specified direction and this change occurs, how can random decision making in a brain cause the output of an electronic device to change? Even if you do not restrict the mind to the brain, how can random decisions result in the desired outcome of a random system?
 
Well I guess you can call t magical, and I'll call it non-material! You have to face it, if you want to force materialistic assumptions on to your theorising, you will get materialistic conclusions out of it!
I'm not forcing anything. I'm asking for an explanation of how you think free will works. I get no response.

~~ Paul
 
Sure. Google Libertarianism. There are philosophers out there who define such a combination as "free will".
Yes, but no one cares about compatibilist free will. We all agree there are forms of compatibilism.

You (or at least Dillinger) are the one who equates nondeterministic with random. Call brute facts nondeterministic, if you like. But it's far from beeing random.
Really? Okay, then describe a nondeterministic decision-making procedure that is not just a coin flip.

Surely not. I said a free will act could be a brute fact and not a contingent entity/process. It's quite similar to consciousness (and probably related).That's the explanation. To ask for a mechanism doesn't even make sense in this case.
Unless all such brute facts are predetermined, there has to be a decision-making procedure. Can you describe it?

I doubt that all philosophers will disagree. Take Colling McGinn for example. And the burden is still on your side. You want to convince me that I have no free will, that my actions are either determined or pure chance. But that contradicts my experience! I am not convinced.
Surely you're not going to rely on introspection to decide whether there is libertarian free will.

~~ Paul
 
Last edited:
If there is a pre-sentiment effect demonstrated, yet the subjects were able to avoid the negative photo, it would demonstrate that if a future event can affect the present, then a choice was made to avoid the future event that seemed to already happen (because if it didn't occur in the future, then how could it have an effect in the present?). If it were deterministic, how could you explain this?
Ah, I see what you're saying. That's interesting. I could use remote viewing to detect that the image was about to be displayed, then cancel it. Of course, then we have remote viewing, another box of frogs.

I have absolutely no idea how possible time paradoxes interact with determinism and randomness.

If you explain this as random, then you have another problem - if it were just random, why would the presentiment effect precede the negative and not the positive? If, say, consciousness can scan the future for probable events and alert you, then with an RNG displaying photos you could have a 50/50 chance of seeing negative or positive, yet you only see the presentiment effect prior to negative photos. If you invoke some sort of EPR across time type of correlation, it may offer a way to explain some presentiment effects, but then if we look at the precognitive remote viewing from SRI then we are challenged since this explanation couldn't work in this situation. It sea as if a future event can actually be picked up in the present. And if this is the case, how could a choice be just random if that random choice in a particular direction is needed for the future event to actually occur in experience?
I agree that a random explanation would be difficult.

Another side to this is what David Bailey mentioned. With considering the above about quantum cognition models, free will theorem, etc to eliminate deterministic models, and we look at Gödel's incompleteness theorems and Turing's indecidability theorem, we further realize that we cannot fit this into a random model, either. There is something fundamentally different about our ability to think that cannot be mathematically modeled. The quantum cognition models are an improvement, but these models based on quantum randomness cannot get around the incompleteness and undecidability theorem.
I would be careful of misusing Godel and Turing when thinking about the brain. There are some that argue that they are relevant, but many who argue that they are not. No one claims that my thinking is both consistent and complete. Whether I have access to some sort of oracle is an interesting question.

Looking at PK experiments adds to this. If a subject has an intent to cause deviation of the output of an RNG in a specified direction and this change occurs, how can random decision making in a brain cause the output of an electronic device to change? Even if you do not restrict the mind to the brain, how can random decisions result in the desired outcome of a random system?
I think it's quite unlikely that the PK experiments are valid. The only way to explain them is by some sort of "I intend for the outcome to skew in a particular direction, so 'god' makes it so." I don't see how libertarian free will gets us the results.

~~ Paul
 
Yes, but no one cares about compatibilist free will. We all agree there are forms of compatibilism.

Libertarianism is not compatibilism, just by the way.

Really? Okay, then describe a nondeterministic decision-making procedure that is not just a coin flip.

According to wikipedia
Indeterminism is the concept that events (certain events, or events of certain types) are not caused, or not caused deterministically (cf. causality) by prior events.
(
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminism)

It is you who claims that this means pure chance. It's not my burden to describe anything. Nevertheless I have explained that free will as a brute fact may also match this criteria.

My position is easy. I experience free will. I think (yes, via introspection) that this is not purely random nor purely predetermined. And it doesn't feel like a combination of chance and determinism. I, as a person, can choose. I can decide. Somehow I can act free, to some extend. Brute facts are not contingent on anything. They just are or explain themselves.

And it is you who want to convince me that this feeling is wrong. Like others want to convince me that my consciousness is just an illusion and so on. So why should I take this burden? I have never heared a convincing argument why indeterminism means pure chance.

Xissy
 
Yes, but no one cares about compatibilist free will. We all agree there are forms of compatibilism.

You (or at least Dillinger) are the one who equates nondeterministic with random. Call brute facts nondeterministic, if you like. But it's far from beeing random
Really? Okay, then describe a nondeterministic decision-making procedure that is not just a coin flip.


Unless all such brute facts are predetermined, there has to be a decision-making procedure. Can you describe it?


Surely you're not going to rely on introspection to decide whether there is libertarian free will.

~~ Paul

You don't seem to realise that non-materialism, or the acceptance of consciousness as something fundamental, is a concept that is supposed to solve some problems - the Hard Problem, and the nature of free will in particular. Explaining non-materialism in terms of materialistic concepts is to destroy its significance!

Like every totally new concept in science, it is introduced to solve stuff, but it can't be derived from the old theory.

Eliminating libertarian (i.e. genuine) free will would leave the theory of consciousness back where it started - you would have a mechanism (presumably electrochemical) with no way to resolve the HP. Whenever I mention free will, I am talking about this kind of free will, because I don't accept that any other kind exists!

You are playing the same game as those who wanted to explain the randomness of QM by introducing hidden variables.

Materialism presents itself as the theory of common sense. As such it tries hard not to expose its underbelly of ideas that are extremely far from common sense - because an appeal to common sense is really its strongest argument.

If consciousness were deterministic plus some random component, nobody could logically be held responsible for the actions they take! Furthermore, maths could be fundamentally flawed, and we would never know (because every proof is put together by a series of conscious acts of free will)! Etc. This is a fundamentally nihilistic philosophy that asserts that nothing has any value - not even pure hedonism, because this relies on qualia, which are themselves suspect!

David
 
Libertarianism is not compatibilism, just by the way.
Right. That's why I'm talking about libertarianism and not getting excited about compatibilism.

According to wikipedia
Indeterminism is the concept that events (certain events, or events of certain types) are not caused, or not caused deterministically (cf. causality) by prior events.
(
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminism)

It is you who claims that this means pure chance. It's not my burden to describe anything. Nevertheless I have explained that free will as a brute fact may also match this criteria.
If it's not caused deterministically, then it is random. I'm perfectly happy to entertain a description of an indeterministic, nonrandom process, but I haven't heard a coherent description yet.

My position is easy. I experience free will. I think (yes, via introspection) that this is not purely random nor purely predetermined. And it doesn't feel like a combination of chance and determinism. I, as a person, can choose. I can decide. Somehow I can act free, to some extend. Brute facts are not contingent on anything. They just are or explain themselves.
They don't explain themselves. If that was the case, we would have no description of the fundamental particles, forces, or laws. Note that I am not asking for a reason, just a description.

And it is you who want to convince me that this feeling is wrong. Like others want to convince me that my consciousness is just an illusion and so on. So why should I take this burden? I have never heared a convincing argument why indeterminism means pure chance.
What else can it mean? If absolutely nothing determines event E, then how can it be anything other than a stochastic event?

~~ Paul
 
You don't seem to realise that non-materialism, or the acceptance of consciousness as something fundamental, is a concept that is supposed to solve some problems - the Hard Problem, and the nature of free will in particular. Explaining non-materialism in terms of materialistic concepts is to destroy its significance!
But this has nothing to do with whether there can be something buried in indeterminism that is not random. Let's assume idealism. How does the personal mind make a decision?

Eliminating libertarian (i.e. genuine) free will would leave the theory of consciousness back where it started - you would have a mechanism (presumably electrochemical) with no way to resolve the HP. Whenever I mention free will, I am talking about this kind of free will, because I don't accept that any other kind exists!
What does free will have to do with consciousness? If there is such a thing as free will, I could be making free decisions nonconsciously.

If consciousness were deterministic plus some random component, nobody could logically be held responsible for the actions they take! Furthermore, maths could be fundamentally flawed, and we would never know (because every proof is put together by a series of conscious acts of free will)! Etc. This is a fundamentally nihilistic philosophy that asserts that nothing has any value - not even pure hedonism, because this relies on qualia, which are themselves suspect!
I'm sorry about the responsibility issue, but I doubt nature cares. Society can assign responsibility regardless of free will. I don't think that math proofs are constructed entirely consciously, regardless of what consciousness is.

~~ Paul
 
If it's not caused deterministically, then it is random. I'm perfectly happy to entertain a description of an indeterministic, nonrandom process, but I haven't heard a coherent description yet. They don't explain themselves. If that was the case, we would have no description of the fundamental particles, forces, or laws. Note that I am not asking for a reason, just a description.

Of course they do explain themselves, as they just are. If free will is an unmoved mover, there is no need for any further explanation. And as already stated. I carry no burden here. You claim that that indeterminism stands for random, which contradicts my experience. I haven't heared any convincing argument for this dichtomy so far. It reminds me of the many bad arguments for creationism or god. If it isnot evolution, it has to be design and so on. Even if we can't think of a third alternative (and I think we can -> brute facts), that doesn't mean that it's chance.

Even pure chance seems to be fuzzy. There had to be some distribution, some rule. But where does such a rule come from.
 
Of course they do explain themselves, as they just are. If free will is an unmoved mover, there is no need for any further explanation. And as already stated.
So you can make up something to plug a hole and then declare that it "just is." Sorry, too easy. There is no other fundamentals in nature for which we get away with that. We have mathematical descriptions of all the fundamentals. Note that I'm just asking for a hint of a whiff of a description about how it works. I'm not asking for math. I'm not even asking for a semi-formal description.

I carry no burden here. You claim that that indeterminism stands for random, which contradicts my experience. I haven't heared any convincing argument for this dichtomy so far. It reminds me of the many bad arguments for creationism or god. If it isnot evolution, it has to be design and so on. Even if we can't think of a third alternative (and I think we can -> brute facts), that doesn't mean that it's chance.
There are determined events and there are not-determined events. It's a dichotomy. A completely not-determined event has no causes and so is random. Do you think you can describe, even vaguely, how there can be a third possibility?

Even pure chance seems to be fuzzy. There had to be some distribution, some rule. But where does such a rule come from.
We don't know. But let's say it has a cause. Can you describe how that cause works in a way that isn't just further determinism and randomness all the way down?

~~ Paul
 
@Paul

A hole would be ccontingent, that's the difference. There are other examples for brute facts. Think of an unmoved mover, some being without any cause. Aristoteles has argued quite convincingly that there has to be some uncaused thing - otherwise there would have been an infinite regress. Don't panic, that doesn't mean that this first mover is god. Just that there is at least 1 entity without any explanation.

There are determined events and there are not-determined events. It's a dichotomy. A completely not-determined event has no causes and so is random. Do you think you can describe, even vaguely, how there can be a third possibility?

That was not the question. You state that non-determined means random and therefore postulate the dichtomy determined <-> chance. I doubt that as I don't think chance 1) is really free of any causation/rule and 2) is synonymous to non-determinism. You want me to describe a third option, I proposed brute facts (beware, non-determinism doesn't mean there is no cause, just that it is not determined - even quantum effects in our experiments have a cause..us starting the experiment). You didn't like that. So what? As already stated, I, in return, still wait for a convincing argument why non-determinism has to be synonymous with pure chance. For me that's just "chance of the gaps" or do you know any logical proof here? I am not quite sure if my brute fact thing is correct. It's an idea. But I am convinced that your dichtomy is way too easy.

I could also imagine another possibility here. Determined and non-determined seem to span a continuum. If every action is to find somewhere on this continuum, every action would be a combination. I could imagine that there is some kind of strong emergence. Some new effect somewhere in between. But that's just an idea which comes to my mind.
 
Last edited:
A hole would be ccontingent, that's the difference. There are other examples for brute facts. Think of an unmoved mover, some being without any cause. Aristoteles has argued quite convincingly that there has to be some uncaused thing - otherwise there would have been an infinite regress. Don't panic, that doesn't mean that this first mover is god. Just that there is at least 1 entity without any explanation.
I fine with an uncaused agent making the decisions. But why can't you describe how the agent makes those decisions? If you say the decisions themselves are uncaused, then they are random.

That was not the question. You state that non-determined means random and therefore postulate the dichtomy determined <-> chance. I doubt that as I don't think chance 1) is really free of any causation/rule and 2) is synonymous to non-determinism. You want me to describe a third option, I proposed brute facts (beware, non-determinism doesn't mean there is no cause, just that it is not determined - even quantum effects in our experiments have a cause..us starting the experiment). You didn't like that. So what? As already stated, I, in return, still wait for a convincing argument why non-determinism has to be synonymous with pure chance. For me that's just "chance of the gaps" or do you know any logical proof here? I am not quite sure if my brute fact thing is correct. It's an idea. But I am convinced that your dichtomy is way too easy.
Let's say nondeterminism has room for something other than purely stochastic processes. This means that the nondeterministic processes are partially stochastic and partially NDNR-istic, but not at all deterministic. Can you give even a hint of how NDNR works? Just an informal little description of what's going on? If you can't describe it at all, then I don't understand why you subscribe to it.

I could also imagine another possibility here. Determined and non-determined seem to span a continuum. If every action is to find somewhere on this continuum, every action would be a combination. I could imagine that there is some kind of strong emergence. Some new effect somewhere in between. But that's just an idea which comes to my mind.
Sure, every process can be partially deterministic and partially nondeterministic. But you still have the problem of describing NDNR.

~~ Paul
 
I would be careful of misusing Godel and Turing when thinking about the brain. There are some that argue that they are relevant, but many who argue that they are not. No one claims that my thinking is both consistent and complete. Whether I have access to some sort of oracle is an interesting question.


I think it's quite unlikely that the PK experiments are valid. The only way to explain them is by some sort of "I intend for the outcome to skew in a particular direction, so 'god' makes it so." I don't see how libertarian free will gets us the results.

~~ Paul

Regarding Gödel's incompleteness theorems, I think I am using them for how even Gödel himself intended. Gödel was a mathematical Platonist and felt that our mathematical knowledge can come from this realm. Strictly mathematically it speaks to completeness of formal mathematical systems, yet at the same time involves philosophical insight. We humans are the ones that see there are the mathematical truths that cannot be proven. We can use that intuition in mathematics, which goes beyond formal logical systems. Either that or we are entirely deluded in our mathematical understanding, which I doubt for various reasons. Turing's indecidability theorem is very similar and complimentary to Gödel's theorems. Gödel's theorems are very relevant to our mathematical thinking.

Regarding the PK experiments, why do you think they are not valid? Why would you invoke God? If consciousness is involved in wavefunction collapse and can bias the probability distribution in the intended direction (in this case operating within the limits of the uncertainty principle), and an intent does that, I can't think of a better idea of free will. In fact, I think that it's possible that our brains are a very good PK amplifying device that allows free will intention to have important effects in our lives.
 
Last edited:
Let's assume idealism. How does the personal mind make a decision?

What does free will have to do with consciousness? If there is such a thing as free will, I could be making free decisions nonconsciously.

~~ Paul

If you do not understand consciousness or what free will would be if it exists, how can you say that you could be making free decisions non-consciously?
 
I'm not forcing anything. I'm asking for an explanation of how you think free will works. I get no response.

~~ Paul

Paul, I offered empirical research that I think is suggestive of free will, which is PK. I asked some specific questions as to how a deterministic or random explanation could fit the data, but your response was that you doubt the experiments are valid. Considering that there are over 600 RNG PK studies and at least 169 dice PK studies, I am curious why you wish to reject this research as invalid.

I am offering something empirical to avoid the black hole of the philosophical free will debate, yet you invoke God in a way that seems to be an attempt to dismiss the research.
 
I fine with an uncaused agent making the decisions. But why can't you describe how the agent makes those decisions? If you say the decisions themselves are uncaused, then they are random.

Because I don't know the mechanism? The decisions would be caused by the agent. You postulate that there is determined and random. I postulate that there could be some kind of "free will". Descisions come into being caused by the agent but just partly determined. And instead of some random distribution as a complement, let's say our consciousness makes a descision which is neither determined by the physical world nor arbitrary. This is a speculation. My main argument is that I am not convinced that there is a dichtomy between random and determined. And I am still waiting for a convincing argument why that should be the case.

Let's say nondeterminism has room for something other than purely stochastic processes. This means that the nondeterministic processes are partially stochastic and partially NDNR-istic, but not at all deterministic. Can you give even a hint of how NDNR works? Just an informal little description of what's going on? If you can't describe it at all, then I don't understand why you subscribe to it.

Like I said, I could imagine brute facts. Or some kind of natural law / fundamental we just don't know yet. I believe that there is some kind of free will because of my personal experience. You want to convince me that this is not the case. Not the other way round.

Sure, every process can be partially deterministic and partially nondeterministic. But you still have the problem of describing NDNR.

The interesting question is if there is something totally new here, as a result of this combination. Neither determined nor indetermined. Some kind of strong emergence.
 
Last edited:
Let's say nondeterminism has room for something other than purely stochastic processes. This means that the nondeterministic processes are partially stochastic and partially NDNR-istic, but not at all deterministic. Can you give even a hint of how NDNR works? Just an informal little description of what's going on? If you can't describe it at all, then I don't understand why you subscribe to it.

Sure, every process can be partially deterministic and partially nondeterministic. But you still have the problem of describing NDNR.

~~ Paul

As far as I can tell, this condition is satisfied by calling deterministic intent "free". That is, when it is non-intentional processes which determine an outcome it's "deterministic". When it is intent which determines the outcome, it's "free". The process by which intent is formed is hidden from our consciousness. This serves to hide the problem that no description is given as to how intent differs between identical conditions in a way which isn't determined or random (which includes processes which are partially both).

Linda
 
Regarding Gödel's incompleteness theorems, I think I am using them for how even Gödel himself intended. Gödel was a mathematical Platonist and felt that our mathematical knowledge can come from this realm. Strictly mathematically it speaks to completeness of formal mathematical systems, yet at the same time involves philosophical insight. We humans are the ones that see there are the mathematical truths that cannot be proven. We can use that intuition in mathematics, which goes beyond formal logical systems. Either that or we are entirely deluded in our mathematical understanding, which I doubt for various reasons. Turing's indecidability theorem is very similar and complimentary to Gödel's theorems. Gödel's theorems are very relevant to our mathematical thinking.
Not if we aren't claiming to be complete and consistent. I recommend this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Gödels-Theorem-Incomplete-Guide-Abuse/dp/1568812388

Regarding the PK experiments, why do you think they are not valid? Why would you invoke God? If consciousness is involved in wavefunction collapse and can bias the probability distribution in the intended direction (in this case operating within the limits of the uncertainty principle), and an intent does that, I can't think of a better idea of free will. In fact, I think that it's possible that our brains are a very good PK amplifying device that allows free will intention to have important effects in our lives.
I am skeptical that the intent "to affect some unknown kind of RNG in an unknown location toward an unknown state" can possibly "connect" with that RNG and produce the desired effect.

~~ Paul
 
If you do not understand consciousness or what free will would be if it exists, how can you say that you could be making free decisions non-consciously?
A marvelous question! But since we have no idea how free will works, why could it not sometimes be nonconscious? My whacky proposal is as good as any other. I'm just pointing out that the libertarian free will mechanism could operate nonconsciously.

~~ Paul
 
Paul, I offered empirical research that I think is suggestive of free will, which is PK. I asked some specific questions as to how a deterministic or random explanation could fit the data, but your response was that you doubt the experiments are valid. Considering that there are over 600 RNG PK studies and at least 169 dice PK studies, I am curious why you wish to reject this research as invalid.
Can you explain why you think PK experiments have anything to do with free will? Why are they any more indicative of free will than any other situation where I exercise my will?

I am offering something empirical to avoid the black hole of the philosophical free will debate, yet you invoke God in a way that seems to be an attempt to dismiss the research.
I'm looking for a description of how libertarian free will works. I agree that if there is such free will, it can be demonstrated in many ways.

~~ Paul
 
Back
Top