Free Will

Do you have a conversation topic that doesn't seem to fit any of the other conversations? Here is where we discuss ANYTHING about Joseph Campbell, comparative mythology, and more!

Moderators: Clemsy, Martin_Weyers, Cindy B.

Locked
User avatar
romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh » Sat Nov 08, 2014 5:40 pm

Roncooper wrote:Rom wrote
delta G = delta G° + RT ln ([products]/[reactants])
nb I got the sign wrong in the original
I still don't see how this proves there is no free will. I have a theory that each decision I make burns 267 calories.
I am not citing proof ... I am citing evidence!!!

I am not talking about enthalpy here Ron, although it and entropy are buried in:
RT ln ([products]/[reactants])
When you have reached equilibrium (burned your energy to whatever we define as equilibrium, then delta G° = -RT ln ([products]eq/[reactants]eq) = -RT ln K

It is all the mechanisms and machinations of going from ([products]/[reactants]) to K.
There is a huge amount of chemistry buried in there; and in some way those (libertarians) that claim to have free will are denying the descriptions we have of these processes and indeed are in some way false. They may well be ... but I would argue it is incumbent on those claiming they are false provide the evidence. Don't you?
Last edited by romansh on Sat Nov 08, 2014 6:22 pm, edited 6 times in total.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
zoe
Associate
Posts: 235
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 1:00 am
Location: In route

Post by zoe » Sat Nov 08, 2014 6:05 pm

I love this. It is the perfect theory. To have knowledge without knowledge is to ignore reality all together. Boy, I can't wait to jump on that bandwagon.
We present a theory of information expressed solely in terms of which transformations of physical systems are possible and which are impossible - i
If the physics of neuroscience demonstrate that free will is impossible then as a concept it must become extinct. If on the other hand the physics support freewill as possible the idea lives on by implication per the theory. It is after called constructor theory not constructor fact but it does seem to be an approach that may be more useful than those based on no data at all.
User avatar
romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh » Sat Nov 08, 2014 6:29 pm

zoe wrote: If the physics of neuroscience demonstrate that free will is impossible then as a concept it must become extinct. If on the other hand the physics support freewill as possible the idea lives on by implication per the theory. It is after called constructor theory not constructor fact but it does seem to be an approach that may be more useful than those based on no data at all.
While I agree wholeheartedly with this view point, the fly in the ointment is:
is physics true and is our understanding of it accurate?

Apparently we can't be sure.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
Roncooper
Associate
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:51 pm
Location: Eastern Tennessee

Post by Roncooper » Sat Nov 08, 2014 6:30 pm

Rom, I am not denying the conservation of energy. I and denying the conservation of cause and effect. There is no such law.

Given your liver condition, you define the whole as the physical universe functioning as a machine, and you don't believe that anything is autonomous. Within this narrow definition, I can see that there would be no free will.

My liver condition makes me believe that things have autonomous properties and that is enough to make free will possible. I also believe in a transcendent realm. I must have a very common liver aliment.
Roncooper
Associate
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:51 pm
Location: Eastern Tennessee

Post by Roncooper » Sat Nov 08, 2014 6:47 pm

In physics the standard for acceptance of a phenomenon is 5 sigma, (99%) certainty. When the neurologists have demonstrated a mechanism that eliminates free will and have achieved 99% certainty I will change my mind.

My take on my brain is that it is my data acquisition and control system. It also has data storage and data processing and data analysis capabilities. It is an essential part of me, just like my liver.
User avatar
romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh » Sat Nov 08, 2014 6:50 pm

Roncooper wrote: Rom, I am not denying the conservation of energy. I and denying the conservation of cause and effect. There is no such law.
I am not claiming there is conservation of cause end effect. I am claiming there is cause and effect. Cause and effect are the same thing. They just differ from our perspective.

In fact cause can be seen as energy can it not? Can you think of a cause that is not in some way energy? So in that sense perhaps cause and effect are conserved if we think of them simply as energy?
Roncooper wrote:Given your liver condition, you define the whole as the physical universe functioning as a machine, and you don't believe that anything is autonomous. Within this narrow definition, I can see that there would be no free will.
It is not a narrow definition ... I would argue it is an extremely broad definition.
So when we move to narrower definitions (ie change the definition of free will) then we move into James's quagmire of evasion.

Having said that the ramifications of my broad definition of free will do not suddenly disappear ... this is I think James' point.
Roncooper wrote:My liver condition makes me believe that things have autonomous properties and that is enough to make free will possible. I also believe in a transcendent realm. I must have a very common liver aliment.
And yet your liver can be described by cause and effect from prior to conception. It's biology is described by biochemistry which in turn is described by physics.

My computer has autonomous features too. As does the Google car in Nevada that got a driving living licence.

The walls of my house behave autonomously once erected?
Last edited by romansh on Sat Nov 08, 2014 10:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
User avatar
romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh » Sat Nov 08, 2014 7:06 pm

Roncooper wrote:In physics the standard for acceptance of a phenomenon is 5 sigma, (99%) certainty. When the neurologists have demonstrated a mechanism that eliminates free will and have achieved 99% certainty I will change my mind.

My take on my brain is that it is my data acquisition and control system. It also has data storage and data processing and data analysis capabilities. It is an essential part of me, just like my liver.
If I can measure my inputs with sufficient accuracy then it is reasonable to accept a similar accuracy in the predicted output.

If by my broad definition of free will, the input is the environment (universe) then I don't see how we can reasonably measure the myriad of components that go into my choices.

But this is not really the point here Ron. The question is not whether we can accurately model and predict the outcomes of our will. I don't think we can. The question is any part of your choice/will not a result of cause and effect? If the answer is yes then this really requires some discussion.

If the answer is no, then this is soft determinism ... and it is essentially a redefinition of what free will is and does not answer the central issue.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
User avatar
romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh » Sat Nov 08, 2014 7:12 pm

Incidentally, five sigma was an incredibly high standard that was used for the Higgs boson.

Image

but then in certain branches of science we need that high standard ...
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/obs ... hats-that/

Three sigma is 99.7% reproducibility within a particular range.

As an afterthought how would believers in free will go about their model for free will and how many sigmas would we expect from such a model? The fact that non free will modellers could not meet a certain reproducibility does not mean free will exists, just that the model for our non free wills is at least incomplete.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
Roncooper
Associate
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:51 pm
Location: Eastern Tennessee

Post by Roncooper » Sat Nov 08, 2014 7:56 pm

I get 95% for 3 sigma.
Roncooper
Associate
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:51 pm
Location: Eastern Tennessee

Post by Roncooper » Sat Nov 08, 2014 8:05 pm

Rom posted,
As an afterthought how would believers in free will go about their model for free will and how many sigmas would we expect from such a model? The fact that non free will modellers could not meet a certain reproducibility does not mean free will exists, just that the model for our non free wills is at least incomplete.
The people who believe in free will are not claiming that science is on their side. Once a person claims the authority of science, they must follow the rules of science.
Roncooper
Associate
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:51 pm
Location: Eastern Tennessee

Post by Roncooper » Sat Nov 08, 2014 8:10 pm

In fact cause can be seen as energy can it not? Can you think of a cause that is not in some way energy? So in that sense perhaps cause and effect are conserved if we think of them simply as energy?
A cause causes energy to be consumed, or better, transformed, and I burn energy when I get an idea I act on, but I don't agree that ideas are energy.
User avatar
romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh » Sat Nov 08, 2014 8:11 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68%E2%80%9 ... 399.7_rule

Not really relevant to the our discussion.
But I am glad wiki agrees with me :)

But back to the various points.
eg is cause energy? If so is cause conserved?
How would people that believe in the free will model, test their model?
What coefficient of variation would they accept ... the number of sigmas by itself is meaningless.

I have cited a lot of evidence that casts doubt on free will. What evidence do you have for free will?
Last edited by romansh on Sat Nov 08, 2014 10:35 pm, edited 3 times in total.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
User avatar
romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh » Sat Nov 08, 2014 8:13 pm

Roncooper wrote:
In fact cause can be seen as energy can it not? Can you think of a cause that is not in some way energy? So in that sense perhaps cause and effect are conserved if we think of them simply as energy?
A cause causes energy to be consumed, or better, transformed, and I burn energy when I get an idea I act on, but I don't agree that ideas are energy.
Then what are they? Can you have an idea without energy causing them? Do they come into existence in some magical way?
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
User avatar
romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh » Sat Nov 08, 2014 8:17 pm

Roncooper wrote: The people who believe in free will are not claiming that science is on their side.
Then how do they claim they have free will? (on what basis?)
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
zoe
Associate
Posts: 235
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 1:00 am
Location: In route

Post by zoe » Sun Nov 09, 2014 5:05 pm

Roncooper wrote:
The people who believe in free will are not claiming that science is on their side.
Then how do they claim they have free will? (on what basis?)
Really..... a rhetorical question?
Locked