Mechanism for free will I don't see anyone has proposed

[Skepdick]

Here is your choice-algorithm. It demonstrates a choice-function which randomly chooses coffee, tea or milk.

https://repl.it/repls/WorriedNeglectedTelephones

Code: Select all

from np.random import choice as choose

available_choices = ['coffee', 'tea', 'milk']

for _ in range(30):
  print(choose(available_choices))

If the algorithm was unbiased, then if you were to make this choice 30 times you would expect that milk to appear approximately 1/3 times, tea to appear 1/3 times and coffee to appear 1/3 times etc. The above mechanism does exactly that.

What is missing from your idea is the notion of a 'weighted choice' where some choices are more likely to be made than others.

Say I like coffee way more than tea or milk.

https://repl.it/repls/RequiredFarWorkers

Code: Select all

from np.random import choice as choose

available_choices = ['coffee', 'tea', 'milk']
weight = [ 0.9, 0.05, 0.05 ]

for _ in range(30):
  print(choose(available_choices, p=weight))

In the above mechanism coffee will be chosen 90% of the time, milk and tea will be chosen 5% of the time respectively.

And so for the sake of philosophical disagreement one could simply point out that while you are clearly able to choose between coffee, tea and milk, are you really able to choose which one you choose more frequently?

Are you free to choose your weighting function? It's the same as asking 'are you able to change your preferences?'

[Skepdick]

Even if that "process" is you yourself?

Is it 'yourself' if your DNA determines your preference for tea, coffee or milk before you were born?

This is the standard nature vs nurture question. How much is determined by your DNA vs how much is determined by your upbringing?

[Atla]

Just to confirm, you don't mind roof as inanimate object making decisions in such passive way as I described, your objection is determinism only?

Yes my objection is to determinism only.

In any case, if you don't mind, please let me understand how you arrive to conclusion determinism rules out possibility of free will. And how do you answer my question from the opening post in relation to the mechanism described - if that's not free will, then what exactly is it I am not free from?

Everything in the universe is known to behave in a deterministic way, free will would be if you could deviate from that. For example you could fill the three cups any way you want simply by willing it. (fill them with something appearing out of nothing, or take something in them and make them disappear completely, or take another part of the universe and teleport it into the cup, or something like that)

By the way, how about Matrix type simulation, could it be made in principle such that we do have free will in there, given we could make laws of physics whichever way we like?

For us inside the simulation sort of yes, however it would probably require an enormous deterministic universe in which the simulation would be running. (So ultimately still only giving us the illusion of free will, and we couldn't go beyond what the programming of the simulation allows either.)

But if the simulation was big and good enough, we would never notice.

[henry quirk]

"By "fairy dust" I mean 'without cause or reason'."

When you choose, you're the cause. When you do, you're the cause. Your actions and thinkin' are yours: you're the cause.

[Zelebg]

What is missing from your idea is the notion of a 'weighted choice' where some choices are more likely to be made than others.

It is there, represented by diiferent patterns, and indeed some choices are more likely to be made than others.

And so for the sake of philosophical disagreement one could simply point out that while you are clearly able to choose between coffee, tea and milk, are you really able to choose which one you choose more frequently?

You seem to be saying just because I was born with low affinity for tea and high affinity for milk, somehow that means I don't have free will. Free from what, from my own personality? But yes, it is possible for a person to change own personality or behaviour to very high degrees.

Are you free to choose your weighting function? It's the same as asking 'are you able to change your preferences?'

You don't choose your DNA, but usually you can choose to modify or change your identity/personality, including preferences.

[bahman]

This is basically a principle of Darwin's evolution where possible choices come in raw similar to random mutations, but then get selected by brain "patterns" representing ecosystem in this comparison. It combines randomness and determinism, but should work more or less the same regardless of determinacy of underlying physics.

"Identity" - Let us define it as material, biological "code" which determines who you are, that is determines shape and structure of your brain, the way you think, the way you process sensations. Your identity is your DNA at the start of your life, and as you live, this code, now reflected in the patterns of your brain, combines your memories and your thoughts to change and update itself, producing slightly different patterns and thus representing slightly older you, but also your newer and hopefully wiser identity or personality. By "brain patterns" I mean whole spatial and temporal description of every atom/molecule and charge in your whole nervous system.

Now, suppose exactly to nanosecond on my 20th birthday I get to choose between a cup of tea, coffee or milk, and patterns in my brain representing this choice at that time look like this:

Code: Select all

|vvv||vv^||^v^|
 tea  cof  mil

Imagine this as three cups or receptors where first has greatest volume requiring the most time to fill. So that pattern represents my low affinity for tea and high affinity for milk. Your pattern for the same options right now may look like this:

Code: Select all

|vvv||^^^||---|
 tea  cof  mil

Meaning low chance to choose tea, very high chance to choose coffee, milk no chance.

The mechanism: as I make my choice, say charge randomly fills in my choice receptors and whichever one reaches its threshold first marks the choice has been made. The choice was made by me, by "patterns of my brain". Is this not free will? And if not, then what exactly is it I am not free from, in this case?

Can you terminate a chain of thoughts? This is an uncaused cause process. It is not reducible to something else. Free will.

Best your can do is create a new string, but it is still subject to a string. Thus freewill manifests certain laws of form by nature.

True.

Yeah, that is a good way of putting it, the line seems to be uncaused cause.

We are uncaused cause. Minds.

[Zelebg]

Is it 'yourself' if your DNA determines your preference for tea, coffee or milk before you were born?

Who is this person born with my personality and my preferences? You! It is you, isn't it? Blimey! You are not only you, but you are also me, and who knows who else!

This is the standard nature vs nurture question. How much is determined by your DNA vs how much is determined by your upbringing?

People can change like crows can learn new tricks. The question is whether we have free will, and your requirement for that seem to be that you get to choose your own DNA, or at least give birth to yourself.

[Skepdick]

Who is this person born with my personality and my preferences? You! It is you, isn't it? Blimey! You are not only you, but you are also me, and who knows who else!

You are making a statistical error.

1. There are plenty of people born with similar personality/preferences as you who have a different DNA to you.
2. There is plenty of scientific evidence where identical twins (with identical DNA) develop different tastes and have different personalities.

How do you disambiguate these two cases?

The question isn't whether DNA predicts anything about is - that's a false dichotomy. The question is how much does DNA account for?

https://www.quantamagazine.org/new-turm ... -20190423/

[Zelebg]

Yes my objection is to determinism only.

But you would agree 'choice' has to be completely determined by a person so we can call it absolutely free? If something else or someone else had influence on that decision, it would be that much less free, right?

Everything in the universe is known to behave in a deterministic way, free will would be if you could deviate from that. For example you could fill the three cups any way you want simply by willing it.

You can not come closer to free will by deviating from determinisam because only deviation from determinism is randomness. Also note your example does not describe deviation from determinism, but actually describes unrestricted determination, and you just ommit to specify how and what exactly is determining or willing whatever is happening.

[Eodnhoj7]

If there is something wrong with there being a "mechanism" why not say what the problem actually is, and what could possibly be an alternative, fairy dust?

It's a contradiction as free will is then determined by a specific process.

Even if that "process" is you yourself?

still subject to identity laws.

[Atla]

But you would agree 'choice' has to be completely determined by a person so we can call it absolutely free? If something else or someone else had influence on that decision, it would be that much less free, right?

Yeah well isn't that what free will means?

You can not come closer to free will by deviating from determinisam because only deviation from determinism is randomness. Also note your example does not describe deviation from determinism, but actually describes unrestricted determination, and you just ommit to specify how and what exactly is determining or willing whatever is happening.

You are saying that free will is impossible, also 'magic' is impossible. Then your topic makes no sense.

[Zelebg]

Yeah well isn't that what free will means?

Not officially. One would expect, whatever freedom, should be defined naturally in terms of independence and autonomy, but current popular definition is something among the lines of "ability to choose otherwise".

You are saying that free will is impossible, also 'magic' is impossible. Then your topic makes no sense.

I hope I did not really say that because I like magic and this whole thread is about putting forward an argument 'free will' does exist. I even propose mechanism for how this 'free will' could indeed have a true causal power over material body. I am very close to convincing even myself this actually makes sense.

So, as we concluded, free will instead of less determinism kind of requires more of it, certainly the less restricted, less random, the better. This of course can only make sense if we have not just one, but two of these determinations, external and inner, environment vs. self determination. Right away it becomes clear the freedom of volition is directly proportional to self determinism, and inverse proportional to environment determination or influence. How's this for start?

[Atla]

Yeah well isn't that what free will means?

Not officially. One would expect, whatever freedom, should be defined naturally in terms of independence and autonomy, but current popular definition is something among the lines of "ability to choose otherwise".

You are saying that free will is impossible, also 'magic' is impossible. Then your topic makes no sense.

I hope I did not really say that because I like magic and this whole thread is about putting forward an argument 'free will' does exist. I even propose mechanism for how this 'free will' could indeed have a true causal power over material body. I am very close to convincing even myself this actually makes sense.

So, as we concluded, free will instead of less determinism kind of requires more of it, certainly the less restricted, less random, the better. This of course can only make sense if we have not just one, but two of these determinations, external and inner, environment vs. self determination. Right away it becomes clear the freedom of volition is directly proportional to self determinism, and inverse proportional to environment determination or influence. How's this for start?

Well from what I can tell, in philosopy it very much means "ability to choose otherwise".

[Zelebg]

How strange to end conversation back where it started. The basic point that goes all the way to the beginning of my first thread is that current definition is wrong. It's terribly awful, and not just because it is ridiculous for being untestable, but also because it is false and unable to discern what is supposed to. With that definition there is no final answer to the question of free will. All you can do with it is to talk past each other and go around in circles forever.

[Atla]

How strange to end conversation back where it started. The basic point that goes all the way to the beginning of my first thread is that current definition is wrong. It's terribly awful, and not just because it is ridiculous for being untestable, but also because it is false and unable to discern what is supposed to. With that definition there is no final answer to the question of free will. All you can do with it is to talk past each other and go around in circles forever.

Breaking determinism (the known laws of physics) is totally testable. Anyway we would need 2-3 different terms for free will, rather than just redefining it.