Free Will

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Free Will

Post by henry quirk »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 5:01 pm
henry quirk wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 4:20 pm It's a conundrum: the causal agent movin' as he chooses thru the agglutinate of causal chains that is Reality.
It's only a conundrum if you assume everything is only determined by physical principles. While it must be true that the behavior of all merely physical entities is determined (described by) physical principles, it is equally true that for a very tiny number of physical entities there is another principle that makes them unique. It's called life. While the physical aspects of an organism are determined as all merely physical things are, those aspects of an organism's behavior which we call living is not determined by physical principles but is made possible by them.

There's no conundrum unless you accept the physicalist's premise.
The determinist & materialist would dismiss you. Life is just physical process, they'll say. You, as life, are physical process and nuthin' but. Your psyche or self-consciousness or -- as I prefer -- soul is just the result of physical process, and like any other result of physical process is utterly determined.

You are a bio-robot, they'll say.

For them, there is no conundrum. Acceptin' the physicalist's premise is acceptin' man is Roomba, full stop.

No, the conundrum is only recognizable when the facts -- man is a free will; Reality is determined -- are considered together.

They are irreconcilable.

Neither gives way to the other.

Both are true.

It is what it is.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will

Post by Immanuel Can »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 5:31 pm man is a free will; Reality is determined -- are considered together.

They are irreconcilable.

Neither gives way to the other.

Both are true.

It is what it is.
I don't think both are true. I think the first is true, and the second is false.

Reality largely involves physical laws, activities and forces. However, human input is different. As RC put it, physical laws "make possible" or better, are the conditions and conditoners of human volition, but human volition can independently decide what to make from the physical laws. The physical laws do not dictate that Picasso will paint, or what he will paint. The physical laws will only be invovled in the dynamics of how the paint flows or dries. Physical laws do not create "Guernica" or "Blue Guitar." But Picasso's creative decisions are limited to the dynamics of fluids and solids. The conditions of his creativity are givens; the expression of that creativity is not.

But Determinism has to say that Picasso, too, is a Roomba. So he's not actually creative. "Guernica" or "Blue Guitar" are actually produced by the physics of the universe, as is the delusion in Picasso's cranium that he is contributing something. He's not. He, like everything else, is nothing but a product of physical laws, Determinism must insist.

So Determinism is false and reductionistic. What is true is that physics get to set the conditions, but human will gets to channel them into creative purposes.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Free Will

Post by henry quirk »

I can't disagree with you two more.

Determinism, it seems, is real.

Man, as free will, (the extreme version of free will I align with) is real.

Neither allows for the other, but here we are.

So: if Reality is an agglutinate of causal chains and if man meanders among them as he likes, beginning, bending, and ending some as he chooses, then man is exceptional.

You two would point to a flaw in, or a misunderstanding about, Reality. I, on the other hand, say we seems balls to the wall set on misunderstanding man.

Bottomline: I do not believe Reality allows for us, but we're here anyway.

I don't believe declarin' determinism false is a solution, nor is makin' appeals to some spooky level of Reality a solution, or talkin' about emergent properties.

The circle cannot be squared. I admire the desire to, but don't believe the effort is truly profitable.

We're like un-melting ice sittin' naked in the middle of a ragin' fire.

We are unexplaned, non-dismissible, real.

Conundrums, each and every one of us.

There is, of course, a solution to the conundrum; unverifiable in a direct way...but, you know this, Mannie
Last edited by henry quirk on Sat Jul 31, 2021 7:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Free Will

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 5:26 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 5:01 pm
henry quirk wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 4:20 pm It's a conundrum: the causal agent movin' as he chooses thru the agglutinate of causal chains that is Reality.
It's only a conundrum if you assume everything is only determined by physical principles.
I think we have to make the key distinction here: to say that many things follow strictly physical laws, but some don't, is no form of Determinism. It's what any free-willer believes. And to say that people "determine" things is only to use the word as a synonym for "make up their minds firmly"; it's unrelated to Determinism.

Determinism is a complete Monism: in all its forms, only one thing, force or rule governs everything and is the ultimate explanation of every phenomenon. If there were two forces involved in how the world works, then NEITHER of them could be called "Determinative." Rather, each would subvert the conclusive Determinative role of the other.

Physicalist Determinism insists only physical forces explain everything that happens.

There are other forms of Determinism.

But any form of Determinism is going to have to insist that if it's not physical forces that are Determinative, then the physical forces are themselves determined by something else, like perception (Mystical Determinism) or a particularly autocratic "god" (Calvinism). But Determinism does not, in any of its forms, allow for more than one Ultimate Determinant. The rest, it has to insist, is only (as Henry says) "hooey," a misunderstanding of things that are still subject to the Ultimate Determinant.

So "will" is just another delusion, a result of human failure to understand that they were all really predetermined to do what they did anyway. (that's Compatibilism's flaw: it says "will" but means "physical forces" when it does).
While it must be true that the behavior of all merely physical entities is determined (described by) physical principles, it is equally true that for a very tiny number of physical entities there is another principle that makes them unique. It's called life.

You can say so.

But if you do, then you just stopped being a Determinist at all, and became a Dualist, if you ever were a Determinist at all. This is because your statement claims there are two forces: "physical principles," is one; "life" is the other. That is, unless you subsume "life" to the "physical principles," in which case your statement is wrong -- there is no actual determinant of anything but the "physical forces," and you can be a Determinist again.

Which did you mean?
While the physical aspects of an organism are determined as all merely physical things are, those aspects of an organism's behavior which we call living is not determined by physical principles but is made possible by them.
Dualism again. The either the "physical forces" are behind will, or else they are not: but if they are not, then "will" is a distinct category of causal agency, and Determinism isn't true.

So really, you're a Dualist?
You know I'm not any kind of an, "-ist," and definitely not a dualist. There is only one ontological existence and every existent in that existence is whatever its attributes are. The only difference between my view and a physicalist's view is the physicalist believes the only possible attributes of physical existence are those which the physical sciences describe, and I regard the attributes of life, consciousness, and human minds as perfectly natural attributes of the same ontological existence in addition to the physical attributes. Position, motion, acceleration, mass, momentum, force, energy, life, consciousness, and rational/volitional consciousness are all attributes of the same single existence. None of those attributes exist independently of the entities they are the attributes of and none are substances or things.

I have no interest is defending or refuting anyone's pet view of, "determinism." I'm only defending my view that everything that is merely physical is determined (in the sense that the principles of physics thoroughly describe its behavior) but that those physical entities with the additional attributes of life, consciousness, and volition cannot be thoroughly described by physical principles alone.

I have never, by the way, referred to my view or defended it as, "determinism."

The problem I see with your view that "either everything is determined or nothing is," since you believe in what you call free will, it means physical existence is not determined either, and that's the end of the physical sciences.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Free Will

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 5:47 pm Reality largely involves physical laws, activities and forces. However, human input is different. As RC put it, physical laws "make possible" or better, are the conditions and conditoners of human volition, but human volition can independently decide what to make from the physical laws. The physical laws do not dictate that Picasso will paint, or what he will paint. The physical laws will only be invovled in the dynamics of how the paint flows or dries. Physical laws do not create "Guernica" or "Blue Guitar." But Picasso's creative decisions are limited to the dynamics of fluids and solids. The conditions of his creativity are givens; the expression of that creativity is not.
...

So Determinism is false and reductionistic. What is true is that physics get to set the conditions, but human will gets to channel them into creative purposes.
Very good, IC.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Free Will

Post by RCSaunders »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 6:24 pm There is, of course, a solution to the conundrum ...
Of course there is. As I said, it's only a conundrum if you begin with the wrong premise. Every right premise must be based on evidence, and the evidence the physicalist view rejects is one's own conscious volition. In the real world, nothing that actually is can be a contradiction. Since there is a determined physical reality, else science would not be valid, and our own conscious volition is not determined, reality must include more than the merely physical. That's the first premise and it makes it all very simple.

Real existence consists of everything there is. Most of everything that exists is merely physical. There is a small part of that existence which is both physical and living. There is an even smaller part that is not only physical and living, but also conscious. And there is the smallest part that is not only physical, living, and conscious but rationally/volitionally conscious (human beings).

The behavior of everything is determined by its nature. Physical things are determined by their physical nature alone. Living things are determine by their physical nature as well as their living nature. Conscious things are determine by their physical, living and conscious nature. Human beings are determine by their physical, living, conscious and volitional nature, i.e. conscious choice.

No mystery. No complication. No need to appeal to some mystical explanations.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Free Will

Post by henry quirk »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 8:17 pm
henry quirk wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 6:24 pm There is, of course, a solution to the conundrum ...
Of course there is. As I said, it's only a conundrum if you begin with the wrong premise. Every right premise must be based on evidence, and the evidence the physicalist view rejects is one's own conscious volition. In the real world, nothing that actually is can be a contradiction. Since there is a determined physical reality, else science would not be valid, and our own conscious volition is not determined, reality must include more than the merely physical. That's the first premise and it makes it all very simple.

Real existence consists of everything there is. Most of everything that exists is merely physical. There is a small part of that existence which is both physical and living. There is an even smaller part that is not only physical and living, but also conscious. And there is the smallest part that is not only physical, living, and conscious but rationally/volitionally conscious (human beings).

The behavior of everything is determined by its nature. Physical things are determined by their physical nature alone. Living things are determine by their physical nature as well as their living nature. Conscious things are determine by their physical, living and conscious nature. Human beings are determine by their physical, living, conscious and volitional nature, i.e. conscious choice.

No mystery. No complication. No need to appeal to some mystical explanations.
So much right; too much wrong.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 6:47 pm The problem I see with your view that "either everything is determined or nothing is," since you believe in what you call free will, it means physical existence is not determined either, and that's the end of the physical sciences.
Not at all.

Determinism is not necessary for physical science. For physical science is not the sum total of all knowledge. It's just one area, and addresses things that are purely physical. All that's necessary for physical science to work is for the things that physical science deals with to work in a law-like way. And they do.

I say "physical science," because, of course, things like the "social sciences" and the "humanities" are not sciences, per se. They sometimes use scientific methods, especially to address things like statistics and behaviour patterns, but they're not like, say physics and chemistry, or even biology -- the "hard" sciences, as they are called.

The most important question is whether or not the human mind is comprehensively explicable in terms of physical science. I think it's pretty obvious it's not. That's why we've had to create the "soft" sciences: to use physics, chemistry and biology alone does not give us enough information, and those specialities do not have the tools to provide any adequate account of many of the key aspects of human life...the arts, philosophy, psychology, social behaviour, morality, identity, cognition, cuture, and so on.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 6:52 pm Very good, IC.
Thank you, RC.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Free Will

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 12:58 am
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 6:47 pm The problem I see with your view that "either everything is determined or nothing is," since you believe in what you call free will, it means physical existence is not determined either, and that's the end of the physical sciences.
Not at all.

Determinism is not necessary for physical science. For physical science is not the sum total of all knowledge. It's just one area, and addresses things that are purely physical. All that's necessary for physical science to work is for the things that physical science deals with to work in a law-like way. And they do.
My point is that what the physical sciences study must be physically determined by the principles that describe that physical existence, else the principles are not reliable. The physical determination does not extend to those entities which have additional attributes which are not physical, like life, consciousness, and volition.

If "Determinism," assumes everything is determined physically, and that the only alternative to determinism is that nothing is determined, that would make science impossible, because no scientific principle could be certain. That is, according to what you have said in the past, what you believe.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Free Will

Post by henry quirk »

The physical determination does not extend to those entities which have additional attributes which are not physical, like life, consciousness, and volition.

I agree.

Where we disagree is on the source of life, consciousness, and volition.

You, I guess, believe these emerge from the material, which, it seems to me, means these are subject to the same limitations as the material.

Obviously, they aren't, so -- especially consciousness and volition -- can't be emergent.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will

Post by Immanuel Can »

henry quirk wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 4:08 pm The physical determination does not extend to those entities which have additional attributes which are not physical, like life, consciousness, and volition.

I agree.

Where we disagree is on the source of life, consciousness, and volition.

You, I guess, believe these emerge from the material, which, it seems to me, means these are subject to the same limitations as the material.

Obviously, they aren't, so -- especially consciousness and volition -- can't be emergent.
Right.

"Emergentism" is a huge non-explanation.

It's like "self-evident" or "spontaneous generation." All it really is, is a confession that the alleged experts have run into a problem with which they are making no headway, and about which they have no reasonable theory.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 3:58 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 12:58 am
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 6:47 pm The problem I see with your view that "either everything is determined or nothing is," since you believe in what you call free will, it means physical existence is not determined either, and that's the end of the physical sciences.
Not at all.

Determinism is not necessary for physical science.

...physical science is not the sum total of all knowledge. It's just one area, and addresses things that are purely physical. All that's necessary for physical science to work is for the things that physical science deals with to work in a law-like way. And they do.
My point is that what the physical sciences study must be physically determined by the principles that describe that physical existence,
And that's fine. But it doesn't even remotely imply that everything science CANNOT study is also Determined.
If "Determinism," assumes everything is determined physically, and that the only alternative to determinism is that nothing is determined,
No, that's not so. There's a third alternative.

"Determinism," on the one hand, and "predictability" or "law-governedness," on the other, are two different things. The latter refer only to those things science can legitmately study...which are physical phenomena, and does not rule against anything else existing, or against other areas of life and experience not operating by the same rules. That's fair enough. And it makes science possible.

So a properly modest science does not lapse into Scientism. It does not arbitrarily declare itself "ruler of all." And it doesn't range into things like consciousness, or identity or rationality or will, because those things are larger than simply physical. There is no reasonable expectation that a purely physical science will ever fathom them. It can, at most, nibble around the edges, wherever those things overlap with the physiological or physical world; but there are limits to what that approach can do...limits we all recognize, especially in areas like aesthetics, creativity, innovation, intuition, cognition, language, and a whole bunch of other things that are essential to the totality of humanity as a phenomenon.

But the latter, "Determinism" is a gratuitous claim that ALL things must operate that way, and anything that does not cannot possibly be real. That has nothing to do with science, and nothing to do with reasonableness. It's a creed, an unwarranted extension from law-governedness.

So you can have science, and science that works, and physical laws, and even predictabiilty -- with no smattering of Determinism. Determinism is a form of Scientism, not of science. In fact, because it's a gratuitous and unproven hypothesis overlaid on the data, it's an impediment to science: it burdens science with things for which science is not equipped, and for which it cannot reasonably be expected to answer.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Free Will

Post by henry quirk »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 4:15 pm
henry quirk wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 4:08 pm The physical determination does not extend to those entities which have additional attributes which are not physical, like life, consciousness, and volition.

I agree.

Where we disagree is on the source of life, consciousness, and volition.

You, I guess, believe these emerge from the material, which, it seems to me, means these are subject to the same limitations as the material.

Obviously, they aren't, so -- especially consciousness and volition -- can't be emergent.
Right.

"Emergentism" is a huge non-explanation.

It's like "self-evident" or "spontaneous generation." All it really is, is a confession that the alleged experts have run into a problem with which they are making no headway, and about which they have no reasonable theory.
As I recall, there's a notion about self-organizing systems. The Creator and the soul, these are hokum, but matter self-organizing, that there is science.

I'm pretty sure, no matter how long I wait for it, a collection of car parts ain't gonna assemble itself in to a car.

Oh, Henry, that's not the same as molecules organizing to form complexites, such as a cell. You're a moron!

Other than scale: it's exactly the same: the interior of a cell is vastly more complex than my car but the cell assembled itself simply as a reaction to blind forces.

It's not the same, Henry. A cell is organic, it's active. Your car is inert. You're a buffoon!

A human being is made up of oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus.

Pretty sure I can get all those, in the proper proportions, mash 'em together and not get a human being.

Time! Blind forces! Evolution! Chance! Monkeys with typewriters! Multiverse! You're an idiot, Henry!

😐
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Free Will

Post by henry quirk »

So you can have science, and science that works, and physical laws, and even predictabiilty -- with no smattering of Determinism. Determinism is a form of Scientism, not of science

And this clears up our minor disagreement up-thread. When I talk about determinism I only mean Reality is an A -> B -> C affair. When I say determined I only mean, all things bein' the same, A -> B -> C.

Mebbe I oughta switch to predictability, though that doesn't sit right with me.
Post Reply