3 ms·

That we're just meat machines with no free will? Not exactly contrarian perhaps (just per laws of physics), but probably a one-percenter opinion.

GPerson 5y ago
Laws of physics are mathematical constructs. You can’t prove or disprove the existence of free will with a mathematical formalization.
- HarHarVeryFunny 5y ago
  Well, no, and you can't prove that tomorrow you won't see a pig just start floating in the air. The thing with the laws of physics is they they appear to predict 100% of what happens in nature. No one has ever seen something in nature, or in the lab, that either couldn't have been predicted by the physics of the day, or later after new laws theories were created. So.. either your muscle fibers are controlled by your neurons, acting according to their understood biochemical operations, i.e. the laws of physics/chemistry, or they are not... Free will says that your actions are not proscribed by the wiring of your brain and laws of physics - that you have a choice in what you do. Until someone observes a neuron not acting according to the laws of chemistry, that seems like an awfully long-shot belief, even if nothing can be ruled out. Perhaps someone in the future will discover the human spirit is controlling quantum behavior ?!
  - GPerson 5y ago
    You are saying, “no, the laws of physics are not mathematical constructs”..? If you’re interpreting “laws of physics” in your original post to mean “what’s really happening”, then your original post is effectively “Free will isn’t really happening because I believe it’s not really happening (laws of physics)”. It also sounds like you’re implicitly making assumptions that what’s really happening is obviously deterministic. This is not clear. “ No one has ever seen something in nature, or in the lab, that either couldn't have been predicted by the physics of the day, or later after new laws theories were created.” The list of contradictions to this statement is massive, unless you’re just asserting your faith that all questions will be answered.
    - HarHarVeryFunny 5y ago
      I'm just saying that if the actions our brain and body (and the rest of nature) are 100% predictable per the laws of physics, chemistry, etc, then there's no room for them to be controlled by something else. It's not some dualistic "you" controlling the neurons in your brain ... it's chemistry. Given the current state of synaptic strengths in your brain, its actions in response to any input are proscribed. You may be able to report on the evolving neural activity up until the point that some specific action threshold is reached (and your muscles start twitching), but the outcome in reality was never in doubt despite alternatives having been "considered" beforehand. Don't get hung up on the laws of physics being mathematical constructs... To make specific predictions you need an appropriately accurate language, and math does the job. Do I think that nature has a copy of Schrodringer's wave equation stashed away somewhere ? ... No, but the behavior of the system can still be accurately predicted by it. Maybe in the future the laws we've deduced will be described in a different fashion, but the underlying behavior and predictability will not have changed.
      - GPerson 5y ago
        “Mathematical construct” is synonymous with “appropriately accurate language”. “I'm just saying that if the actions our brain and body (and the rest of nature) are 100% predictable per the laws of physics, chemistry, etc, then there's no room for them to be controlled by something else.”” True, but why do you think “what’s really happening” is reducible to any kind of precise theory? “ Given the current state of synaptic strengths in your brain, its actions in response to any input are proscribed. You may be able to report on the evolving neural activity up until the point that some specific action threshold is reached (and your muscles start twitching), but the outcome in reality was never in doubt despite alternatives having been "considered" beforehand.” Can you share the studies that show this? I’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to convey here. Is it that some study shows certain actions can be predicted by brain activity before they are made?
        HarHarVeryFunny 5y ago
        > Is it that some study shows certain actions can be predicted by brain activity before they are made? Sure, and also experiments where people report making conscious decisions for actions who's speed precludes a path through the cortex. What I meant by "... evolving neural activity .." was to explain how we feel as if we have a choice, and are making decisions, because before any action "decision" is made (motor control initiated) there will likely be a period beforehand where whatever triggered the action is being processed and the outcome is not yet clear. Eventually there'll be some sort of winner-takes-all collapse of the alternatives and one will dominate. In the prelude to final response, we have access to our "inner thoughts" and can see the indecision and process, and we attribute that to some theorized actor "my self". Anyways, I'm not here to convince you about this. As sure as I am about this, I do realize it's a "contrarian" view, and that the feeling of self-determination sure seems convincing, even if rationally a scientist may realize it is not true.
schwartzworld 5y ago
How do you define free will?
- HarHarVeryFunny 5y ago
  I define free will as the belief that you have some choice in your actions, rather than them being proscribed by the wiring of your brain. Normally belief in free will is based on some dualistic non-physical notion of self.
  - schwartzworld 5y ago
    What's the difference between "I chose X because I wanted it" and "I chose X because my brain was wired to want it"?
    - HarHarVeryFunny 5y ago
      The real point is that there is no choice at all. Free will is an illusion. The first sentence is fine - it's how we all speak - as long as you understand the conventions you are using - what the words "I", "chose" and "wanted" really mean. The second sentence seems intended to be the more technically accurate one, but IMO it's really worse since it's a mish-mash of levels of abstraction. It would be better expressed as "I did that because my brain was wired to do that" (or better yet "because my brain was wired to predict that", but that's a whole other story). Your brain doesn't have "wants" (that's a pyschological concept), and it seems odd to characterize your actions as a "choice" while in the same sentence(!) accepting that your actions are controlled by your brains wiring, and therefore there was no choice!
ivars 5y ago
Free will never made any sense to me as soon I started to think about such things. Events are either deterministic or random. None of that involves freedom of choice.

GPerson 5y ago

Laws of physics are mathematical constructs. You can’t prove or disprove the existence of free will with a mathematical formalization.

HarHarVeryFunny 5y ago
Well, no, and you can't prove that tomorrow you won't see a pig just start floating in the air. The thing with the laws of physics is they they appear to predict 100% of what happens in nature. No one has ever seen something in nature, or in the lab, that either couldn't have been predicted by the physics of the day, or later after new laws theories were created. So.. either your muscle fibers are controlled by your neurons, acting according to their understood biochemical operations, i.e. the laws of physics/chemistry, or they are not... Free will says that your actions are not proscribed by the wiring of your brain and laws of physics - that you have a choice in what you do. Until someone observes a neuron not acting according to the laws of chemistry, that seems like an awfully long-shot belief, even if nothing can be ruled out. Perhaps someone in the future will discover the human spirit is controlling quantum behavior ?!
- GPerson 5y ago
  You are saying, “no, the laws of physics are not mathematical constructs”..? If you’re interpreting “laws of physics” in your original post to mean “what’s really happening”, then your original post is effectively “Free will isn’t really happening because I believe it’s not really happening (laws of physics)”. It also sounds like you’re implicitly making assumptions that what’s really happening is obviously deterministic. This is not clear. “ No one has ever seen something in nature, or in the lab, that either couldn't have been predicted by the physics of the day, or later after new laws theories were created.” The list of contradictions to this statement is massive, unless you’re just asserting your faith that all questions will be answered.
  - HarHarVeryFunny 5y ago
    I'm just saying that if the actions our brain and body (and the rest of nature) are 100% predictable per the laws of physics, chemistry, etc, then there's no room for them to be controlled by something else. It's not some dualistic "you" controlling the neurons in your brain ... it's chemistry. Given the current state of synaptic strengths in your brain, its actions in response to any input are proscribed. You may be able to report on the evolving neural activity up until the point that some specific action threshold is reached (and your muscles start twitching), but the outcome in reality was never in doubt despite alternatives having been "considered" beforehand. Don't get hung up on the laws of physics being mathematical constructs... To make specific predictions you need an appropriately accurate language, and math does the job. Do I think that nature has a copy of Schrodringer's wave equation stashed away somewhere ? ... No, but the behavior of the system can still be accurately predicted by it. Maybe in the future the laws we've deduced will be described in a different fashion, but the underlying behavior and predictability will not have changed.
    - GPerson 5y ago
      “Mathematical construct” is synonymous with “appropriately accurate language”. “I'm just saying that if the actions our brain and body (and the rest of nature) are 100% predictable per the laws of physics, chemistry, etc, then there's no room for them to be controlled by something else.”” True, but why do you think “what’s really happening” is reducible to any kind of precise theory? “ Given the current state of synaptic strengths in your brain, its actions in response to any input are proscribed. You may be able to report on the evolving neural activity up until the point that some specific action threshold is reached (and your muscles start twitching), but the outcome in reality was never in doubt despite alternatives having been "considered" beforehand.” Can you share the studies that show this? I’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to convey here. Is it that some study shows certain actions can be predicted by brain activity before they are made?
      - HarHarVeryFunny 5y ago
        > Is it that some study shows certain actions can be predicted by brain activity before they are made? Sure, and also experiments where people report making conscious decisions for actions who's speed precludes a path through the cortex. What I meant by "... evolving neural activity .." was to explain how we feel as if we have a choice, and are making decisions, because before any action "decision" is made (motor control initiated) there will likely be a period beforehand where whatever triggered the action is being processed and the outcome is not yet clear. Eventually there'll be some sort of winner-takes-all collapse of the alternatives and one will dominate. In the prelude to final response, we have access to our "inner thoughts" and can see the indecision and process, and we attribute that to some theorized actor "my self". Anyways, I'm not here to convince you about this. As sure as I am about this, I do realize it's a "contrarian" view, and that the feeling of self-determination sure seems convincing, even if rationally a scientist may realize it is not true.

schwartzworld 5y ago

How do you define free will?

HarHarVeryFunny 5y ago
I define free will as the belief that you have some choice in your actions, rather than them being proscribed by the wiring of your brain. Normally belief in free will is based on some dualistic non-physical notion of self.
- schwartzworld 5y ago
  What's the difference between "I chose X because I wanted it" and "I chose X because my brain was wired to want it"?
  - HarHarVeryFunny 5y ago
    The real point is that there is no choice at all. Free will is an illusion. The first sentence is fine - it's how we all speak - as long as you understand the conventions you are using - what the words "I", "chose" and "wanted" really mean. The second sentence seems intended to be the more technically accurate one, but IMO it's really worse since it's a mish-mash of levels of abstraction. It would be better expressed as "I did that because my brain was wired to do that" (or better yet "because my brain was wired to predict that", but that's a whole other story). Your brain doesn't have "wants" (that's a pyschological concept), and it seems odd to characterize your actions as a "choice" while in the same sentence(!) accepting that your actions are controlled by your brains wiring, and therefore there was no choice!

ivars 5y ago

Free will never made any sense to me as soon I started to think about such things. Events are either deterministic or random. None of that involves freedom of choice.