A Free Will Challenge
 

I have been quiet lately but following your interesting posts and trying to digest them. The concepts being discussed require some reflection.

But just to check in with some current observations triggered by your recent comments and copies of some archived posts kindly sent to me by Tom. Thanks ;) . .

. . it seems to me that there is an enigma at work in these discussions that is causing the difficulty. That is that these discussions are all taking place in our wonderous conscious minds. And they are amazing to be able to hold mental images of such abstractions as free will and determinism and compatibilism - and turn them over in our minds and examine them from various angles.

It seems to us that our intellect is in charge of our lives because we live in our conscious minds - and because our ego, which is part of our conscious mind likes to believe that its department runs things. Unhindered by emotion our conscious mind is truly free to wander to the most fanciful places. So it seems to us from what we can observe that we can do whatever we imagine - that we have free will.

But choosing behavior (including choosing what beliefs about the world we accept) is a subconscious function that uses only emotional, not intellectual inputs. (During decision transactions our intellectual conclusions participate by providing an emotional marker proportional to how confident we are that they will succeed.) But emotions from our instincts, dispositions and beliefs are also considered when we make a behavior decision - and they could be stronger.

Understanding this difficulty informs the underlying question as well. Our intellectual mind may imagine that we are free to jump from a tall building if we wish and having a strong belief in God, that He will save us. Our ego will gladly confirm that as an expression of both our faith and our free will. But later we fail to recognize that we did not jump because our emotional decision computer, not our intellect, actually determined our choice.

If confronted with the weakness of our intellect to control our lives our ego sniffs and says, "Yeah, but I could have done it if I really wanted to."

In otherwords, we conjure a belief in free will because our ego loves the idea that our conscious mind is in charge. That feels very good.

But we will choose the behavior that feels best from the alternatives. We have no other choice.

I posed this challenge before and it was unmet so I'll do it again. If anyone doubts this last paragraph, please submit an example of human behavior that violates this principle. If you can I'll agree that we have free will.

Margaret

Re: A Free Will Challenge
 

I can agree that all final decisions are emotional; I can think as hard as I want but it's hard to envision acting on a decision that I don't 'like' or 'feel is appropriate' or 'think will keep Alexandra from driving over here and shooting me' ;). But, I think you're contradicting yourself by saying 'not intellectual inputs' and 'intellectual conclusions participate'; sounds like an input to me.

I think my disagreement with Todd is mostly emotional in that something is keeping us from accepting each other's point (and, yes, I expect Fred to jump all over this one; unless he's ignoring me altogether). And this seems to happen so very often with just about everyone...
You no doubt already know that I can't provide examples against what I believe; otherwise, I'd be forced to disagree with you. ;)

And, yeow, yet another thread to subscribe to???

Re: A Free Will Challenge
 

Hi Tom, You said,

The key to this is that the emotional marker is what gets weighed, not the intellectual conclusion itself, which is the behavior choice under consideration and not an emotion.

I realize this notion is upside down from the conventional wisdom and so people can read it several times but since it doesn't fit with their current, long-held view, they just don't see what I am proposing.

Our ego and what we observe makes us think that our intellect is in charge. We have believed that all our lives. Our whole educational experience is based on that (incorrect) belief. Any other notion that violates that belief becomes incomprehensible without a lot of effort. It's that cognitive dissonance thing.


Of everyone here I was most sure that was the case with you. ;) And doesn't that prove my proposition, above?

Margaret

PS - What is "subscribing" and what does it do? Does it make it easier to navigate around here? Can you send me a link to a page that explains this?

Re: A Free Will Challenge
 

That's much more clear, thanks. It's as good a model as any for me, though, as always, I prefer to have a big flying exclamation point as an emotional marker, something I can lay my hands on. ;)

Subscription only sends email if a new post arrives; it doesn't help navigation, though, which is why I always try to include a quote so people know what I'm responding to. If you click on 'thread tools', you'll see 'subscribe' if you still want to.

The thing that helps me most is the 'view first unread' at the top of the thread page. I think you have to be logged on to use either.

Free Will Challenge--Modify the markers
 

Sure Margaret, I suppose that “we” do “choose” what “feels best.” But then why should it ever be otherwise?

E.g., if a woman makes a pass at Tom, he then may “choose” to have sex with her b/c, among other reasons, his “morality” (as he summarized in an old post to Carey) would result in that action being what “feels best” to Tom.

However, if a women makes a pass at me, and since I’m convinced (cognitively and emotionally) that I do have free will and moral responsibility, and also that adultery is wrong, then I will “choose” to not have sex with her b/c my morality (a downwardly caused morality that has modified my “emotional markers”) result in my exercising restraint, and that is, to me, what “feels best.”

OTH, if a female alley cat is in heat, then all the male ally cats— whether it’s Tomcat, Fredcat, Toddcat, Jimcat, whoever—will all “choose” to mate with her. And why is that? B/c all the alley cats have essentially the same DNA “morality markers”—to all of them, screwing whatever and whenever is what “feels best.”

Conclusion: The behavior and morality of all alley cats are similar, suggesting that the cats lack free will. OTH, the behavior and morality of humans, e.g. Tom and Fred, are not similar, suggesting that humans may have at least some free will . . . certainly more than alley cats.

Re: A Free Will Challenge
 

Fred, you said,


You seem to be suggesting that animals who exhibit the same behavior under similar conditions don't have free will.

Does this mean that if you could convince every male to be as moral as you then none of you would have free will?

Alternatively, if the fact that Tom and Fred's behavior is different means that humans have some free will as you say, how does someone know which one of you has it?

Margaret

Re: Free Will Challenge--Modify the markers
 

You're right, that would feel best to Tom. But simplifying my choice to what you'd probably term 'animal instincts' or something is wrong, though I can see how you (and most people) would do that. It's obvious to me that you choose monogamy because that makes you feel the best; you're proud of yourself and the fact that you're an honorable man (at least in that respect) and that overrides the pleasure that you'd feel in enjoying some extra human touch. I was strictly monogamist when my wife preferred it and I couldn't see trading my honor for anything, that would feel so bad that I couldn't live with myself.

But, that would feel best to Tom only because my wife accepts it. She knows the source of the jealousy: fear of my having another child by another woman and fear of losing me to the other woman; this is pure evolutionary psychology. She knows that I'm honorable to the point where I would ensure that I don't have another child. She also knows that there's no way she could lose me to another woman; if the other woman didn't also want to share I'd be much more inclined to stay with my current wife and find some other woman who does.

I have no 'morals' except not to hurt anyone/anything that doesn't deserve it. Spending time with another woman does not hurt my wife, me, or the other women (since they know I'm married, and I know the women who are have a spouse who doesn't mind). You have your own set and I respect that except that it doesn't seem to exclude what you and I both know you do.

But still I know your pain is not easy to bear, and for that I really am truly sorry. You might, again, list this as an attack on you but I'm absolutely serious and honest about this. You're obviously intelligent and I value you as a person, I also like the information in your posts and some of the passion your posts inspire in others.

Just callin' 'em as I see 'em.

Re: Free will v. downward causation
 

You may have missed the point. As LeDoux indicates, we humans seem capable of “downward causation,” Here again in Ledoux’s words—
However Margaret, as I’ve suggested elsewhere, if someone’s truly convinced that we humans lack free will, as you seem to be, then they’re probably effectively locked into that POV, regardless of whatever evidence or argument LeDoux or anyone else provides. After all Margaret, using your words, you’re just choosing the behavior (and thinking) that feels best to you from the alternatives; you have no other choice.

Re: Free will v. downward causation
 

Margaret, he's just baiting you. Though I've warned you against 'tilting against the windmill' that is Fred, you've been doing a great job. However, before he frustrates you out of this forum as he did so many others, I'd like for you to consider the advice I'm following: read his posts and correct his misrepresentations/misunderstandings and merely agree/disagree with his points. Anything more that you try to write to 'teach' him something will just fall on pretty deaf ears. You're encouraged to review all of his 120 or so postings to see just how right I am, below are examples of responses to some of his postings.

If he does frustrate you out of the forum, please leave a post that I can add to the others, below ;). Or hey, if you just want to make a comment now, I'll add it.

Here's Lizzie's last response to Fred:

To which Todd replied:
And here's Carey's last response to Fred:

Quote:
Fred implied that I'm dishonest when I've not seen as amazing an example of 'taking out of context' as when he turned:

into:
And here's another 'discussion' Fred had with Todd:

And, Todd more recently posted:

Re: Free Will Challenge
 

To be recognized by one’s peers . . . it just doesn’t get any better. I’m honored Tom. Thank you, thank you, thank you very much.

Re: Free Will Challenge
 

Hmmm. Interesting. I really don't know what is actually going on in your head. If you truly believe that readers would appreciate everything you've written then, Fred, I'm glad that I could make you feel better about yourself.

And I really appreciate that you accept me as your peer. And I'm not being facetious.

Re: A Free Will Challenge
 

Hi Tom,

Please don't concern yourself about me hanging around. I think Fred's last response illustrates very well my premise that our strong beliefs have far more power to determine how we see the world, our conclusions about what we see and our behavior, than our intellect. Without someone here so committed to their beliefs as Fred, so unphased by reasonable arguments, it would be more difficult to make my point.

Fred, this is not an underhanded insult. The world is full of people with such strong beliefs as yours who are ready to defend them at all costs. The cost of unreasonable discourse is not a high price to pay when one's strong identity beliefs are at stake. Whatever any of us believes, no matter how reasonable, it can turn into dogma if we or it is attacked and our identity feels threatened.

At first I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were here to open yourself to opposing views and test your own. I now see that your motive is more likely to carry the banner of your beliefs into battle in the den of the atheists and to show no quarter. But that's OK because I still think you illustrate my EP premise very well.

Note: I am a little disappointed that others here would rather debate the existence of God with you than discuss these EP concepts that I have tried to bring in to the discussion. :rolleyes:

So far you have not elicited in me the need to defend my beliefs at all costs. If that happened I probably would leave, humiliated. However, I am definitely subject to those feelings under the right conditions. When I first joined here some of my identity beliefs were threatened by some things that JimB said in a couple of his posts. And I responded in a very unreasonable way.

Perhaps the difference between us is that I see the danger in that and I regret it. Maybe some day you can get there too. You'll find that life is far more pleasant when everyone in the world is not either an enemy or an ally. However, I understand that for you right now, your beliefs are terribly threatened by the Godless world around you and having a pleasant life is the least of your concerns.

I hope this post does not sound too condenscending but I'm really trying to be honest. I don't see the point of these forums if a person hides their true observations and conclusions.

Margaret

Re: Free--can Fred get there too?
 

I’m delighted that you’re trying to be honest. And now I’m left wondering if perhaps LeDoux also may be too “committed to [his] beliefs as Fred, so un-phased by reasonable arguments,” with “such strong beliefs as [Fred’s], ready to defend them at all costs?”

Alas, perhaps “some day [I] can get there too,” and “find that life is far more pleasant when everyone in the world is not either an enemy or an ally.” Thank you so much Margaret.

Re: A Free Will Challenge
 

Fred, I was just getting ready to write this but saw your last post.

Despite the dismissive tone of my last post, I wanted to say that even though your reference to LeDoux doesn't rebut my negation of your assertion that similarity of bahavior indicates lack of free will, I think it (downward causation) is an interesting point on its own that deserves consideration.

BTW - Thanks for turning me on to LeDoux. I'm about half way through Synaptic Self. I'd be further along but I am stuck like an old scratched 78 on Chapter 9, The Lost World, which I have now re-read several times. (That was you wasn't it. I'm sorry to whoever I failed to credit if I got that wrong.)

I'm very busy on a project right now but I'll try to think some more about "downward causation" and get back in the next day or two.

Regards, Margaret

Re: A Free Will Challenge
 

Sure Margaret, you’re welcome. And yes, the “lost world of motivation” is a great chapter with lots of fascinating info to digest—I’ve many underlined areas and notes in that chapter. And when you’re finished you may well be even more convinced that free will is an illusion. Oh well.

But keep reading. In his final chapter, “Who Are You,” LeDoux writes: Not that I’d expect that “someone here so committed to their beliefs,” as you seem to be regarding free will, could ever be swayed by the neuroscience of LeDoux. ;)

Re: A Free Will Challenge
 

Hi Fred,

You are right that I have a belief that free will does not exist. Actually, I have a strong higher level identity belief that supernatural forces do not exist - and the free will you speak of seems to require some of those. So my tendency is to look for reasons you must be wrong rather than reasons you could be right.

But my current belief that free will does not exist is a good example of how higher order beliefs determine what new beliefs we will admit into our minds. They've gotta feel good in there with what I already believe. Otherwise I'll have to deal with cognitive dissonance - and maybe even the pain of psoriasis. :eek:

I have an emotional attachment to ideas that are falsifiable but survive all attempts. Give me a definition of free will that survives that test and I'll be on your side.

Margaret

Re: A Free Will Challenge
 

Perhaps. Certainly the fact that we humans can discern objective mathematical truth, and then use that truth to understand ourselves and our universe, might suggest something “supernatural.”

Sure, but you’ll have to use a kind of reductio ad absurdum.

Take your own definition of human “illusion of free will,” or whatever you’d call it, and show that it is indeed falsifiable, and then that it survives all attempts. Additionally, if indeed we do lack free will, and all we have are our subjective mental constructs, you’ll also have to show how we could ever “know” what’s real and unreal, what’s true and untrue, and how we could ever “know” whether a definition of something is truly falsifiable.

Now once you’ve proved to yourself that you can’t do any of that, you’ll then see that the opposite is true, that we do have some amount of free will.

But I doubt you’ll attempt any of that b/c, as you’ve noted, your “higher order beliefs” seem to preclude human free will; you’re effectively locked in. And I doubt that LeDoux’s “downward causation” will have any impact on you. Oh well.

Re: A Free Will Challenge
 

Fred, This is my follow up to "downward causation". As I expected this is very interesting and relevant to the concept of free will. (Much more than your "similarity of behavior" hypothesis. :rolleyes:

I'm putting it here so I can find it easier. I'll address your "Falsify your own beliefs, Pookie (a gratuitous Soupy Sales reference)" argument later. :)

From your post Feb. 15 at 5:55 AM

LeDoux(I'm going to have to start buying highlighters by the case.)

This statement encapsulates several things that deserve examination IMO. The main one is that LeDoux assumes that in the Trilogy our thinking brain deserves to be in a position of control over our base emotions and motivations. He believes like everyone that disfunction, unhappines and strife in human affairs is caused when we don't think good enough or when we ignore our good thinking and follow those base emotions and motivations instead. This is the paradigm that exists in our culture and probably has since our intellect became self aware. It forms the basis of almost every school of human psychology and much of philosophy. It is the BIG MEME of western and even much eastern thought.

I know I'm yelling into a hurricane here but I think that it is wrong. Our intellect is a late addition to our CNS. It only adds another input (albeit a highly refined and useful one) to our emotional decision computer - the same basic system all our mammalian relatives have. And that input isn't our logical conclusions, it's the emotional markers we subconsciously give to them. So, we are still entirely emotional decision-making creatures. The reason we have that BIG MEME belief is because it matches what our conscious minds experience and it feeds such pleasurable emotions into our emotional decision computer when we contemplate our existence.

We have that BIG MEME because our conscious mind only sees it's own activity. It doesn't see our subconscious emotional decision process as it works. So it thinks IT is in charge. After we decide not to jump from a tall building to prove that God exists it says, "I really could have done it if I wanted to." It is lying because that lie feels so good and maintains our illusion of intellectual control. The truth is, if the sum of our emotional inputs said jump only then would we have done it and our intellect and it's silly ego would have gone along for the ride.

We can do no other than what the sum of our emotional inputs dictate. (My hypothesis.)

The BIG MEME does make a case for free will. It says that if we think good enough, perhaps informed by a God who put us here and knows what's best, then we can wrest control from our animal selves and go on to lead the good and moral life - i.e. not screwing everything that comes along, as you put it.

But I still say the BIG MEME is a conceit of our conscious mind who so wants to believe that it is in control - because it feels so damned good. Even LeDoux buys in although I suspect that's just because he hasn't met me yet. :rolleyes:

Actually, I'm sure he bought in as a child and has held that belief all his life as almost everyone in our culture has. As a scientist he has no choice now but to integrate it somehow into his theories. Although I don't think he has thought this one meme through very rigorously it doesn't distract much from the very objective and valuable work he has done on The Synaptic Self - and it offers a fairly harmless paean to his more philosophicly inclined readers.

I know I'm just stating what I believe and trying to show why it is plausible. I know I'm not proving anything. I'm working on that though and this discussion is helping me figure that out. Thanks everyone for humoring me. ;)

Margaret

Re: A Free Will Challenge
 

Actually Margaret, this ultimately boils down to only one essential issue: whether there is objective (mathematical) truth and whether we humans can consciously discern it and use it to understand the reality of the physical world and ourselves. And as I’ve noted elsewhere, the evidence that that is indeed the case is (IMO) overwhelming—and it’s the only way that we could ever “know” anything.

But if you’re convinced otherwise, then so be it. However, in a world as you perceive it, all there can ever be are our illusions, our subjective constructs; and even if we happen to agree on something, like “BIG MEMES,” so what? It’d be nothing more than a consensus of our illusions, our subjective constructs. Or, as Shakespeare’s Macbeth opined:

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

Re: A Free Will Challenge
 

OK, I'll play the part of the Hurricane for the first act. I can't get behind your saying:
and then:
Including 'entirely' in that last sentence makes sense from what you've said but knocks my mathematical skills for a loop. I accept that the conscious mind is not guaranteed to be even aware of reality, much less a perfect merger of all that comes through our senses, even if our senses were perfect; but to relegate it to an emotional input seems a step too far. Yes, you call it a 'marker' but, to me, it's based on at least some logic/reasoning and therefore the final decision is not 'entirely' emotional.

Yes, you're saying that the final decision is entirely emotional and the intellect reasons (perhaps without emotion) outside the decision-making process; but that still means that it has an effect on the final decision.

Re: A Free Will Challenge
 

I never said our intellectual conclusions don't affect our decisions. And in most decisions we make they have a great effect. Those would be the thousands of decisions we make every day (like solving a mathematical problem) where our identity beliefs are not at stake (except perhaps our belief that we are a competent mathemetician). We make those decisions all the time. In fact, that constant activity of our intellect creates the illusion that it is driving the bus.

But sometimes we make more important decisions, like whether to take our sick child to the doctor or pray for their health. It is those identity related decisions where our intellect is somtimes at a disadvantage.

If you see yourself as a child of God who loves most those who believe in Him and whose destiny is in His hands - or you see yourself as subject to natural laws for which medical science provides the best current explanation - will greatly determine your decision. And it will be determined by the strength of the emotional markers that are attached to those identity beliefs in your mind weighed against those of your other instincts, dispositions and intellectual conclusions.

The reason that our intellect is so powerful is that it can operate logically (without emotion) outside our decision making process. It's an objective rather than subjective tool which gives us two complimentary ways to look at reality. And that really is very cool. :cool:

In each mind and in each context it will be given more or less weight to affect our decisions. That's good, not bad - and even though we humans often make spectacular judgement errors I believe that mechanism is the best that evolution has yet devised for any creature coping with the hostile and seemingly chaotic world that we live in.

(Fred's reply will take a little longer.)

Margaret

Re: A Free Will Challenge
 

Then how can you say
? That's the sort of stuff that gives me headaches.

Re: A Free Will Challenge
 

When I say "So, we are still entirely emotional decision-making creatures." . .

. . I am of course, referring to the decison process itself, which remains as the weighing of various emotional inputs. That's my premise that I've explained several times. I'm not referring to the prior conscious act of creating and considering an intellectual conclusion and subconsciosuly applying an emotional marker to it.

I believe your headache is caused by even considering the possibility that your intellect is not driving the bus - not from those two statements which don't need to be seen as contradictory. :rolleyes:

Margaret

Re: A Free Will Challenge
 

On the contrary. I fully accept your idea that

I just think the words you use to express it are sometimes as confusing as "It's sunny outside but it's nighttime" or "intellect has an effect but the decision is entirely emotional". I know what you were trying to say, in fact, I think I even said it. I'm just saying that using those two sentences on the same page sound completely contradictory to anyone who doesn't understand your POV. If you don't want to change them then that's OK by me; I just think you should expect some more confusion on the part of others down the road. It seems like a lot of people put out words like these without considering the ramifications to literalists like me.

I'll drop it. I know what you mean and can see what you're saying; that they don't match is not that important. OK, I can add "after the intellectual input is converted to an emotional input", and be fine with what you're saying...

Plus, what emotion are you expecting to convey with the 'roll eyes' icon?

Re: A Free Will Challenge
 

My frustration that I can't seem to convey to you what I'm trying to convey. That was the closest icon available to what I was feeling.

These forum sessions make it difficult to convey complex things that we often communicate in person with the help of body language and facial expressions and instant clarifications when we see a look of puzzlement of the other person's face. I suspect that in the absense of those other channels that we imagine from inadequate clues how the other person is interpreting our written words - and we're often wrong.

I try very hard to say specifically what I mean but that is so hard to do some times. It also makes my posts appear pedantic which I hate. The recipient is not a person standing next to me drinking a beer. It is a bunch of folks who I can only imagine and who all probably get somewhat different meanings from my words. Aaaargh! :rolleyes:

Margaret

Re: A Free Will Challenge
 

That being the only thing that confused me in all you've written shows that you're much more clear to me than I'd ever expect anyone to be.

The aggravation is obnoxious but this is still great fun. JimB, we need a 'pulling hair out' emoticon! ;)

Re: A Free Will Challenge
 

I believe there is objective truth, at least as far it exists for the purpose of defining the reality we inhabit - and that's a pretty important purpose. It all could be an illusion on some matephysical level but I'll leave those questions to Alexandra.

But our intellect is not the only way we can "know" anything. That is an illusion created by our intellect (conscious mind) on its own behalf. Long before we had intellect we had emotion and that is how we know most things - but sometimes our intellect adds another dimension to that "knowing".

You are putting beliefs into my mind to make your point. I have repeatedly stated that our intellectual conclusions are (sometimes very) objective views of reality that we have access to. So I am not saying that our subjective ways of knowing are all there is. I'm just saying that our sometimes imperfect objective views have to submit (by way of their emotional tags) to our decision-making process, like all our other inputs which may be stronger or not depending on the context.

I think your intellect which believes it has some open channel to the mind of God is offended that your emotions would have some ability to interfere with your (spiritually informed) decisions. So it has placed the concept of free will into your belief system and attached it there with strong emotions so that you will even put beliefs into other people's minds if that's what it takes to defend it. ;)

Margaret

Re: A Free Will Challenge
 

I notice that sometimes my meaning gets through better when I try to describe my emotions rather than my thoughts. And that feels soooo good! :)

Margaret

Re: A Free Will Challenge
 

“Objective truth, as far as it exists . . . it could all be an illusion?”—That’s nothing, nothing like the objective (mathematical truth) that I refer to. What value could your mushy meandering sentiment possibly have in any consistently meaningful and objective sense? None. And that’s the essential issue. We completely disagree.

So creatures with only emotion and no intellect “know most things?” What, like insects, fish, reptiles, alley cats? Yeah, right.

Sounds like you may be projecting. I find your lack of rigor to be insurmountable. Notice I didn’t also say your lack of honesty b/c I think you truly do see things the way you say you do. (However, we do seem to agree, more or less, on the dominance that our primitive subconscious motivation/emotional systems generally have over our conscious cognitions/perceptions; and that’s something that’s often not truly understood or appreciated by most.) I think we’re done. Have a beer on me.

Re: A Free Will Challenge
 

As Tom mentioned yesterday, these forum exchanges are a lot of fun. And this one about Free Will, after a lot of verbal combat seems to be reaching exhaustion - or maybe we are just gathering our strength for the next battle.

But before we go on to something else I'd like to add a few ideas here. First, people often get a bit bent in these discussions. I did that when I first jumped in to the EP zone. Not just because I was guilty of that but generally I'd like to say that that is understandable. What we are doing here is far more compelling than the best designed on-line game (I think that's true but I've never played any of those).

We are bringing our most important personal beliefs out in front of others and inviting them to knock them down. We are giving a bunch of strangers who we'll probably never meet the opportunitiy to tell us that the beliefs that make up the most important elements of our identity are full of crap.

That takes some courage I believe. Also it's easy enough at this level of discourse to see when someone is not being sincere - so we all get to be our own referees and it's pretty hard to cheat. No matter what position we take on things like Free Will, I would say that everyone here is at least in the 95+ percentile when it comes to abstract intelligence. People below that level just don't think about these things very much.

I'd love to think that I made my case against the existence of Free Will and that I successfully defended my high level belief that supernatural forces don't exist in the universe, but I'm sure Fred believes he made his case that they do just as strongly. I think we have only refined the question a bit.

Does our intellect participate in our behavior decisions as just another emotional input into our ancient evolved decision computer as I have proposed - or does our intellect sit above our ancient self and through its enlightened will, wrest control from our animal emotions and thereby allow us to become a better being, a moral animal as Robert Wright would put it.

I actually accept the idea of downward causation but not in the way Fred would like because I also see upward causation. I think it depends on the strength of the emotions being weighed and whether the stronger ones come from below or above in any particular instance. And I reject the idea that a logical conclusion, without an attached emotion to make it relevant to our happiness, and thereby visible to our decision computer, can have any effect on our decisions.

Which is pretty much where we started. As much as I'd like to believe otherwise I don't believe I have made my case. I think to go further on this we'd have to come up with a test that would show that one of these views is correct and the other incorrect. Please let me (us) know if you come up with something.

Thanks for helping me think about this terribly interesting stuff,

Margaret

Re: A Free Will Challenge
 

In spite of the verbal combat, this discussion has been of huge benefit to me. The four of us: Margaret, Alexandra, Todd and I, have nearly exact ideas about free will. I'm not sure about Margaret but Alexandra, Todd and I agree that our choices are deterministic; the two of them would add an element of 'free will' but one that is outside my concept of free will so I can accept that difference as something that we don't know, yet, and I can't argue against. Much as I can accept the fact that I don't know what ultimately created the universe, or what created that which created the universe...

So thank you all, this was a huge success.

Re: A Free Will Challenge
 

IOW, all four of you all have “nearly exact ideas,” that “choices are deterministic,” except that you’re not sure about Margaret, and except that Alex & Todd add “an element of free will,” and except that that is outside “your” concept of free will, and except that that difference is “something that we don't know yet?” And you conclude that this was a “huge success?”

Well Tom, you’ve convinced me—your free will and/or discernment is obviously an illusion. Might as well add me to your consensus with maybe this caveat: Fred also has nearly exact ideas about free will, that choices are deterministic, except when they’re not.

Ah yes, that nice warm fuzzy feeling of consensus . . . kind of like urinating in the swimming pool and believing that nobody will notice.

Re: A Free Will Challenge
 

Pretty good Fred. Not as good as your earlier misrepresentation of someone's thoughts:
Regardless of your rhetoric, we do agree on determinism, which is a fundamental understanding, and that is very rewarding. And I can see how you find that threatening and want to do something in our pool.

Re: A Free Will Challenge
 

Except that you can also “see” how you all have “nearly exact ideas,” that “choices are deterministic,” except that Alex & Todd add “an element of free will,” and except that that is outside “your” concept of free will, and except that that difference is “something that we don't know yet.”

More likely you’re just projecting . . . and really don’t “see” all that much. But then how could it be otherwise since you do, after all, lack free will?

Think about it.

Re: A Free Will Challenge
 

Alex adds free will only for political reasons and Todd grants his concept of free will to programmed machines, I can't argue with either of those and wouldn't want to. So our differences are not substantial at all.

Plus, you're still misrepresenting my understanding of free will. But, I know why you do and I know that you can't do otherwise in your current condition. I also know that I would necessarily do the same, given the same conditions. So I really do value you as a person and sympathize with your plight.

Re: A Free Will Challenge
 

Bizarre. :rolleyes:

Re: Free Will Challenge & Conclusion
 

Free Will Challenge & Conclusion

In the challenge it was asserted that we humans “conjure a belief in free will because our ego loves the idea that our conscious mind is in charge,” and that we “choose the behavior that feels best from the alternatives, that we have no other choice.” IOW, that free will is some sort of illusion. However, from our discussion and the various arguments and explanations provided, it is concluded that we humans do indeed have some amount of free will—

Although “free will” may be difficult to clearly define, we seem to all have some intuitive sense of what it is—essentially choice, choice made by our higher cognitive conscious self, choice that is something more than merely a conscious cognitive illusion being driven by primitive algorithmic subconscious neural mechanisms, mechanisms concerned primarily with survival and reproduction; and free will seems to require, using LeDoux’s term, “downward causation.”

The available evidence indicates that human consciousness—sentience, sapience, self-awareness—is indeed something real, something that does indeed exist; although it also seems to be beyond the precise explanation of any currently available science. More to the issue, the available evidence also indicates that we humans use our cognitive consciousness to discern objective mathematical truth, and that we then use that objective truth to understand, explain, and, to some extent manage, our physical world and ourselves.

Accordingly, the available evidence overwhelming supports the view that we humans do indeed have some sort of, and some amount of, free will (and also implies that we humans are probably the only creatures that do have it.)

(Additionally, for those asserting that we humans do not have free will, that free will is some sort of illusion, then the burden is on them to come up with a definition and/or theory for this “illusion of free will,” to show that this definition/theory is falsifiable; and also to show how creatures that lack free will and that are unable to discern objective truth could ever “know” and/or “prove,” and/or evaluate the reality of anything.)

Re: A Free Will Challenge
 

My general conclusions at this point regarding free will.

When we think of physical events, we always think in terms of physical causes. I think this is an epistemological constraint rather than a metaphysical one. We cannot imagine a physical event without physical causes of some sort. Descartes' infamous dilemma was the difficulty, perhaps even impossibility, of finding a way that "minds" and "bodies" can interact if we conceive of bodies as physical and minds as something distinctly else.

I would say that mechanical causal models gradually become less accurate at describing the behavior of increasingly sophisticated systems in nature. Probably the most sophisticated systems we know of are human minds. Thus we have evolved ways of thinking of these more sophisticated systems using less mechanical kinds of model, such as intentional psychology (attitudes, beliefs, striving for goals).

I don't think there is a definitive resolution for how real the entities of intentional psychology might be, but I think we know two important things about them:

(1) Our intutions about the entities of intentional psychology are often strikingly inaccurate ("the illusion of conscious will", Dan Wegner) - and we can contrive experimental conditions that demonstrate this illusion.

(2) The entites of intentional psychology are generally very useful in our daily life and some form of them may actually be unavoidable for human social interaction (imagine trying to deal with other people day to day without assuming they have minds, your interactions would be bizarre, others would soon perceive you as mentally ill).

So I conclude that our perception of free will is probably not accurate, but that human beings do make choices, that animals and even machines make choices, but that the sophistication and kinds of choices differ from one type of decision maker to another. And our natural tendency to see complex things as intentional systems is in general very helpful, even where it is not entirely accurate. There is possibly some better form of intentional psychology than the one we evolved with, especially if we add massive computational power, but this can only be speculation at this point. I doubt that a purely mechanical model, even with massive computational power, can do a better job with human behavior than intentional psychology does.

Although I agree that we *can* define free will in such a way that humans have it and nothing else does, I think this is the very approach that makes it impossible to reconcile physical causality with choice. If our goal is to understand the mechanisms and processes of decision making (as it is in cognitive science), then it makes more sense to define agency in terms that are continuous with the rest of the natural world.

As is often the case, the best conceptual model to choose depends a lot on the question we are trying to answer. People looking for naturalistic mechanisms should define free will in terms that let them make natural sense of it. People looking for something else probably have good reason to define it differently.

kind regards,

Todd

Re: Free Will Challenge & Conclusion
 

We have concluded no such thing. There is no free will, especially if you imply animals do not have it. The onus is on you to prove that humans have free will since the null case is valid: we can easily be merely smarter than the average chimp and still have exactly what we have. Occam's razor.

I think most people's concept of free will excludes brain dead people; if yours doesn't, and you want to stay within the realm of science or nature, you need to define the vessel for this concept. Many would also exclude mentally insufficient people who can't be responsible for their actions and accept this as a limitation of their 'free will'; how can something that's free be physically caused to the point where we can remove part of Fred's brain and say he no longer has free will?

Re: A Free Will Challenge
 

“Machines make choices?” Yep, I agree Todd, your perception of free will is not accurate, nor meaningful.

I suppose you’re actually referring to the software, the algorithms, that we humans place inside the hardware, your “machines.”

So the machine “choices” you refer to are really just the resulting actions of algorithms—algorithms designed (or discovered) and placed in the hardware by a human consciousness that possesses sentience, sapience, self-awareness, and is capable of discerning and utilizing objective mathematical truth.

Next I suppose you’ll assert that human consciousness is also the result of algorithms—but rather than being generated by hardware and humanly designed algorithms, human consciousness is generated by naturally selected accidental tissue and accidental algorithms—algorithms that somehow manage to avoid that pesky halting problem, and/or Godel’s incompleteness theorem.

If that’s actually your view Todd, fine, but shouldn’t you strive for a bit more rigor and honesty? Your “free will” here would be nothing more than the inevitable determinism of such underlying algorithms, regardless of whatever complexity you might attribute to them.

But of course we’ve been down this road b/f Todd, and I’ve pretty much concluded that you’re essentially, more or less, agnostic about these deeper issues. And that’s fine. I just wish I could convince you that bullshit is not nuance.