3 ms·

You've outlined what I reckon is the appeal of "quantum consciousness". I personally feel that randomness doesn't help to explain free will any more than determ

by n4r9 2y ago

You've outlined what I reckon is the appeal of "quantum consciousness". I personally feel that randomness doesn't help to explain free will any more than determinism. I'm more inclined to believe that free will (in the strictest sense) is an illusion.

carlmr 2y ago
The problem with this approach is that even if you say that our thinking is non-deterministic because of true random effects on the quantum level, you still have to explain how deterministic calculations on random values make for free will. You still have no influence on it, even if there is randomness involved.
- cogman10 2y ago
  You also have to explain why will is changed when the brain is damaged. Really hard to justify free will (IMO) when a person's entire personality can be fundamentally altered by a bash to the head. What does "free will" mean if everything that makes you you can be changed with, say, a lobotomy. It is, at best, an illusion and nothing more.
  - ruthmarx 2y ago
    There is no illusion, and brain damage has no bearing on free will. Free will is simply you making a choice, that's it. If you want to argue about what 'you' means, feel free, but it doesn't really change anything here.
    - n4r9 2y ago
      What is "choice"? Is it simply executing one of a set of possibilities? If you take such a general definition of free will, then a slot machine is manifesting it's free will to deny you a payout.
      - ruthmarx 2y ago
        Making a decision either on impulse, intuition, or rational preferences. > Is it simply executing one of a set of possibilities? If you take such a general definition of free will, then a slot machine is manifesting it's free will to deny you a payout. Sure, or even just a dice. Except that's a rather silly definition of free will since it omits the 'will' part, i.e. thought.
The_Colonel 2y ago
> free will (in the strictest sense) In what sense? Can you produce a strict definition, what is "free will", what is "illusion"? This is a battle of definitions. Pick the definitions you like, and you can prove what you set out to prove.
- n4r9 2y ago
  The "strictest sense" is something like: 1. We have control over our decisions 2. Our decisions are independent of past events I agree that this is pretty hand-wavey and open to semantics. But I don't think that there is any realistic, coherent way to interpret and reconcile the above two statements [edit - without resorting to some kind of non-physicalism e.g. God, spirit planes... ].
  - Filligree 2y ago
    Not even a six-year-old would believe #2. It’s endlessly fascinating that there are people who do, but most people realise their past affects their future decisions.
  - The_Colonel 2y ago
    > We have control over our decisions That begs the question - what is "me"? If I take "me" as the configuration of atoms in my brain, or simply the information if you will, then "me" is determining my future actions, therefore "me" is in control of my decisions. Alternatively, I could define "me" as the whole system - the configuration (electrical signals), the hardware (brain, neurons), the physics. I think most "free will deniers" will say that physics is not part of "me", but I disagree - physics is not separable from matter and information, physical laws permeate everything, they are necessarily part of "me". You don't need any God here, this definition is as physical as it gets. > Our decisions are independent of past events Doesn't this require essentially random behavior? Sounds somewhat absurd ...
    - n4r9 2y ago
      > I could define "me" as the whole system - the configuration (electrical signals), the hardware (brain, neurons), the physics. I think that's fine. But imagine an outside observer who is privy to the current state of the system plus future environmental inputs. In principle, that observer is able to calculate the system's evolution exactly, and therefore predict all future decisions of the person-system. For many people this is contrary to the idea of free will. For how can something be "free" if it is bound by the laws of physics and is known in advance to any sufficiently sophisticated observer.

by n4r9 2y ago

carlmr 2y ago

The problem with this approach is that even if you say that our thinking is non-deterministic because of true random effects on the quantum level, you still have to explain how deterministic calculations on random values make for free will. You still have no influence on it, even if there is randomness involved.

cogman10 2y ago
You also have to explain why will is changed when the brain is damaged. Really hard to justify free will (IMO) when a person's entire personality can be fundamentally altered by a bash to the head. What does "free will" mean if everything that makes you you can be changed with, say, a lobotomy. It is, at best, an illusion and nothing more.
- ruthmarx 2y ago
  There is no illusion, and brain damage has no bearing on free will. Free will is simply you making a choice, that's it. If you want to argue about what 'you' means, feel free, but it doesn't really change anything here.
  - n4r9 2y ago
    What is "choice"? Is it simply executing one of a set of possibilities? If you take such a general definition of free will, then a slot machine is manifesting it's free will to deny you a payout.
    - ruthmarx 2y ago
      Making a decision either on impulse, intuition, or rational preferences. > Is it simply executing one of a set of possibilities? If you take such a general definition of free will, then a slot machine is manifesting it's free will to deny you a payout. Sure, or even just a dice. Except that's a rather silly definition of free will since it omits the 'will' part, i.e. thought.

The_Colonel 2y ago

> free will (in the strictest sense) In what sense? Can you produce a strict definition, what is "free will", what is "illusion"? This is a battle of definitions. Pick the definitions you like, and you can prove what you set out to prove.

n4r9 2y ago
The "strictest sense" is something like: 1. We have control over our decisions 2. Our decisions are independent of past events I agree that this is pretty hand-wavey and open to semantics. But I don't think that there is any realistic, coherent way to interpret and reconcile the above two statements [edit - without resorting to some kind of non-physicalism e.g. God, spirit planes... ].
- Filligree 2y ago
  Not even a six-year-old would believe #2. It’s endlessly fascinating that there are people who do, but most people realise their past affects their future decisions.
- The_Colonel 2y ago
  > We have control over our decisions That begs the question - what is "me"? If I take "me" as the configuration of atoms in my brain, or simply the information if you will, then "me" is determining my future actions, therefore "me" is in control of my decisions. Alternatively, I could define "me" as the whole system - the configuration (electrical signals), the hardware (brain, neurons), the physics. I think most "free will deniers" will say that physics is not part of "me", but I disagree - physics is not separable from matter and information, physical laws permeate everything, they are necessarily part of "me". You don't need any God here, this definition is as physical as it gets. > Our decisions are independent of past events Doesn't this require essentially random behavior? Sounds somewhat absurd ...
  - n4r9 2y ago
    > I could define "me" as the whole system - the configuration (electrical signals), the hardware (brain, neurons), the physics. I think that's fine. But imagine an outside observer who is privy to the current state of the system plus future environmental inputs. In principle, that observer is able to calculate the system's evolution exactly, and therefore predict all future decisions of the person-system. For many people this is contrary to the idea of free will. For how can something be "free" if it is bound by the laws of physics and is known in advance to any sufficiently sophisticated observer.