3 ms·

> I found the concept of free will at odds with my opinion that the brain and physics are very deterministic. Physics don't have to be deterministic in order t

> I found the concept of free will at odds with my opinion that the brain and physics are very deterministic. Physics don't have to be deterministic in order to be at odds with free will. Whether neurons fire due to a predefined pattern, or they fire with some probabilities do not change the equation for "how can a biological machine have free will?" Choice is at odds with both predefined rules and drawing from a random variable. > You are destined to do what your brain is wired to do, but doing anything rewires your brain. Some say even thought is able to rewire your brain. The number of possible brain states at T+n increases exponentially. So our constant reconfiguration of the brain is our way out of determinism. That is, free will does exist in a completely deterministic universe. I completely fail to see how you ended up at that conclusion from that argument. A recursive function, that mutates itself is still bound by it's rules for mutation and recursiveness. Choice doesn't grow out of an exponentially growing number of possible states.

sph 4y ago
I have tried to answer to your last paragraph in 2 or 3 different ways but it's such a complex argument I don't think I'm smart enough to express simply and eloquently in a forum comment. But I very much appreciate the food for thought and input you've given me.
csdvrx 4y ago
> I completely fail to see how you ended up at that conclusion from that argument. A recursive function, that mutates itself is still bound by it's rules for mutation and recursiveness. Choice doesn't grow out of an exponentially growing number of possible states. Not if you add a few random variables. Radioactive elements disintegration seems random. May other things could be as well.
snowwrestler 4y ago
You’re starting from a definition of free will that is a modern outlier compared to the historical use of the term in Western culture. That our will is not completely free is obvious to a child: they can’t always get they want. They can’t will an ice cream cone into existence. “Free will” never meant freedom from physics, so it’s a tautology to say it’s not free because of physics. > A recursive function, that mutates itself is still bound by it's rules for mutation and recursiveness. It doesn’t matter. If the recursive function results in all possible outcomes within a boundary (as many do), then anything operating entirely within that boundary is not constrained by the function. There are a lot of things denied to human will by physics. I can’t will myself up into the air or will myself to live forever without food. Inside those boundaries, my behavior cannot be said to be constrained by physics. I don’t violate the standard model of quantum physics by declining dessert because I’m trying to lose weight. Which is the sort of banal decision that “free will” has historically referred to. > Choice doesn't grow out of an exponentially growing number of possible states. This is backward. The right way to say this is that many human choices are not constrained by the number of available states.
- bheadmaster 4y ago
  > You’re starting from a definition of free will that is a modern outlier compared to the historical use of the term in Western culture. > That our will is not completely free is obvious to a child: they can’t always get they want. They can’t will an ice cream cone into existence. > “Free will” never meant freedom from physics, so it’s a tautology to say it’s not free because of physics. Well, would you care to share with us what "free will" really means, then?
  - ratrocket 4y ago
    Not OP, but later in their comment they say: > [...] declining dessert because I’m trying to lose weight. Which is the sort of banal decision that “free will” has historically referred to. So, they shared that "free will" really means things like ... declining dessert.
    - bheadmaster 4y ago
      In that case, by "free will" they mean "the feeling of free will". In which case it's completely besides the point, since the original argument is about how can free will arise from deterministic/random universe. If the rebuttal is "well I feel like I have free will" there is nothing anyone can do to refute that, since the feeling is real, to them. But that doesn't mean free will itself is real. He's not really choosing to decline dessert just for the sake of it - he has a motivation behind it: losing weight. Now, one could say "well I could decline dessert just for the sake of it" to prove a point, but then "proving a point" would be the motivation for declining dessert. There's just no way out. Free will is a fundamentally ill-defined concept, just like consciousness. We all "feel" it, but nobody can put it into words precisely enough to enable any kind of rigorous discussion.
  - snowwrestler 4y ago
    Of course I can't say what free will "really means," which is a bit of a rhetorical trap. I can say that historically, free will as a concept was invented by people to explain their observations of themselves and others making decisions. As a concept it has historically been scoped to our lived experiences. A person can choose to sin (or not), choose to commit a crime (or not), choose how to react to their stimulus and base motivations. A hungry person can choose not to eat, and go on a hunger strike. An irate person can choose not to be violent toward the object of their anger. An aroused person can choose not to have sex with the object of their desire. Which of these decisions violate our understanding of physics? None of them. A person on hunger strike will eventually die of malnutrition or lack of energy, no matter how strong their will to live on. In that way it is (and has been) a concept which is strongly constrained by physical reality, not a metaphysical free-for-all.

sph 4y ago

I have tried to answer to your last paragraph in 2 or 3 different ways but it's such a complex argument I don't think I'm smart enough to express simply and eloquently in a forum comment. But I very much appreciate the food for thought and input you've given me.

csdvrx 4y ago

> I completely fail to see how you ended up at that conclusion from that argument. A recursive function, that mutates itself is still bound by it's rules for mutation and recursiveness. Choice doesn't grow out of an exponentially growing number of possible states. Not if you add a few random variables. Radioactive elements disintegration seems random. May other things could be as well.

snowwrestler 4y ago

You’re starting from a definition of free will that is a modern outlier compared to the historical use of the term in Western culture. That our will is not completely free is obvious to a child: they can’t always get they want. They can’t will an ice cream cone into existence. “Free will” never meant freedom from physics, so it’s a tautology to say it’s not free because of physics. > A recursive function, that mutates itself is still bound by it's rules for mutation and recursiveness. It doesn’t matter. If the recursive function results in all possible outcomes within a boundary (as many do), then anything operating entirely within that boundary is not constrained by the function. There are a lot of things denied to human will by physics. I can’t will myself up into the air or will myself to live forever without food. Inside those boundaries, my behavior cannot be said to be constrained by physics. I don’t violate the standard model of quantum physics by declining dessert because I’m trying to lose weight. Which is the sort of banal decision that “free will” has historically referred to. > Choice doesn't grow out of an exponentially growing number of possible states. This is backward. The right way to say this is that many human choices are not constrained by the number of available states.

bheadmaster 4y ago
> You’re starting from a definition of free will that is a modern outlier compared to the historical use of the term in Western culture. > That our will is not completely free is obvious to a child: they can’t always get they want. They can’t will an ice cream cone into existence. > “Free will” never meant freedom from physics, so it’s a tautology to say it’s not free because of physics. Well, would you care to share with us what "free will" really means, then?
- ratrocket 4y ago
  Not OP, but later in their comment they say: > [...] declining dessert because I’m trying to lose weight. Which is the sort of banal decision that “free will” has historically referred to. So, they shared that "free will" really means things like ... declining dessert.
  - bheadmaster 4y ago
    In that case, by "free will" they mean "the feeling of free will". In which case it's completely besides the point, since the original argument is about how can free will arise from deterministic/random universe. If the rebuttal is "well I feel like I have free will" there is nothing anyone can do to refute that, since the feeling is real, to them. But that doesn't mean free will itself is real. He's not really choosing to decline dessert just for the sake of it - he has a motivation behind it: losing weight. Now, one could say "well I could decline dessert just for the sake of it" to prove a point, but then "proving a point" would be the motivation for declining dessert. There's just no way out. Free will is a fundamentally ill-defined concept, just like consciousness. We all "feel" it, but nobody can put it into words precisely enough to enable any kind of rigorous discussion.
- snowwrestler 4y ago
  Of course I can't say what free will "really means," which is a bit of a rhetorical trap. I can say that historically, free will as a concept was invented by people to explain their observations of themselves and others making decisions. As a concept it has historically been scoped to our lived experiences. A person can choose to sin (or not), choose to commit a crime (or not), choose how to react to their stimulus and base motivations. A hungry person can choose not to eat, and go on a hunger strike. An irate person can choose not to be violent toward the object of their anger. An aroused person can choose not to have sex with the object of their desire. Which of these decisions violate our understanding of physics? None of them. A person on hunger strike will eventually die of malnutrition or lack of energy, no matter how strong their will to live on. In that way it is (and has been) a concept which is strongly constrained by physical reality, not a metaphysical free-for-all.