madmax2976

Quote:

Originally posted by Synaesthesia: <strong> I don't quite see how determinism or statistical determinism would entail that the ability to make choices is an illusion. Physical laws are simply the wrong level to be describing notions such as intentionality and choices.

I've already stated that it appears that determinism must be true in order for us to be able to make choices. If events were not predictable, making choices would be arbitrary and uninteresting. But the paradox seems to be that the very events we "choose" would be determined as well.

What does it mean to say that we "decide between possible courses of actions" other than we make choices? Is there a difference?

I agree that it does appear that we do make choices. Therefore, there is something about the universe in relation to this, whether its deterministic or random, that is quite a mystery.

excreationist

If determinism is true, then given a particular arrangement of the universe, one particular outcome is inevitable. But while we are weighing up our choices, we usually don't know which option we are going to choose. So from our perspective, there are many choices available to us and we're going to think about the and decide which one to choose. From an omniscient perspective, I think that given the same arrangement of the universe, you will go through the exact same (intuitive/rational) reasoning and arrive at same conclusion, so in a way there was no real choice.
Perhaps an analogy could be a chess computer - it can make lots of different moves, but its got to make a "choice" about which is the best one. Assuming that it doesn't use a random number generator and it doesn't learn from its mistakes, it will give the same decision under the same circumstances. And also, random number generators usually use the computer's clock to come up with a random number. If the clock is the same then it would come up with the same random number.

Synaesthesia

PS.
To paraphrase Carl Sagan, the revelation that we are made of atoms might at least increase our respect for atoms.

In many discussions, the notion that matter is somehow external to us is so deeply. So much so that we think having material minds would be like being coerced into decisions by an external entity. Matter as an external force makes no more sense than conceiving of hardware externally acting upon software.


In reply to “Physical laws are simply the wrong level to be describing notions such as intentionality and choices.“ madmax2976 said,
By “the wrong level” I mean levels of description. A video game can be described as a computer undergoing changes according to the laws of physics. Another level of description would be the processing of information in the millions of tiny switches. Or I could speak of the computer AI moving it’s army south in response to harassment by small groups of heavily armed ghols.

When I am talking about causal chain of events in a video game, I’m never going to give you a narration of every microprocessor switch. I’m going to talk about intentionality, computer AI responding to an attack and abandoning it’s previous course of action. The computer obeys the laws of physics but it can be meaningfully (if not totally) described without recourse to physics.

Each event really follows the laws of physics but in the software levels of description, something other than subatomic forces are being talked about. These are high level concepts; relations between relations and the inter-linking of such structures.

When we’re talking about things like decisions or endless infomercial, we are talking about such high level structures. These are embedded in a reliable epistemic framework of brilliant approximations, shortcuts and heuristics but they don’t have any special claim to metaphysical certainty.

In short, we do indeed make conscious reflective choices. We change our minds, we do and think things for reasons not fully apparent to ourselves and totally inscrutable to others. That we are physical entities does not mean we are not actually thinking and choosing.

Our intuitive notions of ‘mind’ gives us usable information without exhausting the truth and are often in conflict with it. Ironically, the nature of systematic incongruities between reality and our understanding of it can inform and clarify our perception.

Regards,
Synaesthesia

bd-from-kg

madmax2976:

You say:

But apparently it isn’t so “simple”, because you also say:

So it seems that you aren’t at all sure what you mean by the ability to choose, but you are sure that it’s incompatible with determinism:
On the other hand, you seem to be equally sure that an element of indeterminism cannot create this ability:

In fact, at one point you say that indeterminism is incompatible with the ability to choose:

You sum up your dilemma nicely as follows:

By now it should be clear that your problem is that you have no coherent notion of what it means to have the ability to choose. If you’re still not convinced, ask yourself: What state of affairs would have to obtain in order for me to have this ability? Or to put it another way: in order for me to have the ability to choose, what would have to be true? It seems clear that the answer to both questions is that there are no circumstances – i.e., there is no conceivable universe – in which you would consider that you have the ability to choose. Which is to say that your “ability to choose” is like a square circle: it doesn’t exist because it is logically impossible for it to exist.

The problem that you are discussing here has nothing to do with determinism or any other aspect of reality. It is solely a matter of your own confused thinking – in particular, your attempt to reason about something that you have no clear conception of. The only useful outcome of such reasoning is the realization that you are confused. Define clearly what you mean by the “ability to choose”, and the question of whether it exists will probably answer itself.

madmax2976

madmax2976: ...my definition of free will is simply our ability to make choices.

Bd-from-kg: But apparently it isn't so "simple", because you also say:

quote: My question would just then be: What does it mean to have the ability to choose?

Bd-from-kg: So it seems that you aren't at all sure what you mean by the ability to choose, but you are sure that it's incompatible with determinism:

Say what? Please quote me where I say I am "sure" about anything. I don't know where you came up with this. And please explain why you cite these two statements of mine as though dealing with the same context when they were clearly addressing different issues. The first statement was directed towards a definition for free will, which I didn't even bring up, and the second statement was addressed to a dictionary definition of choice as given to me by another poster.

quote: The human brain operates according to physical laws making its events/reactions predictable, in principle. The end result of this of course would be that humans really don't make choices.

Bg-from-kg: On the other hand, you seem to be equally sure that an element of indeterminism cannot create this ability:

quote: How would an element of randomness enable people to make choices? If things were random, then events would just happen for no reason - which is what randomness implies. Therefore, thoughts would just pop into our heads randomly. Could we really say we make choices if our thoughts are random?...

The alternative [to determinism] seems to be the introduction of randomness into the mix, however I fail to see how randomness solves the mystery. If our thoughts are random, there would be no choice involved...

More of this "sure" business coming out of nowhere. I am questioning whether determinism or randmonness is compatible with the ability to choose. Its seems like there's a mystery to me. If you can offer solutions to clear up the mystery, by all means do so.

bg-from-bg: In fact, at one point you say that indeterminism is incompatible with the ability to choose:

quote: ... it appears that determinism must be true in order for us to be able to make choices.

Bg-from-kg: You sum up your dilemma nicely as follows:

quote: Do you have a "will"? Or do the events concerning you happen according to universal laws, and thus your "will" is only an illusion. On the other hand, if things are random, your ability to make choices appears just as illusory.

Bg-from-kg: By now it should be clear that your problem is that you have no coherent notion of what it means to have the ability to choose.

Well that may very well be. Rather than continuing to ignore the precise wording of my statements, (I say "appear" repeatedly), please give me your "coherent" notion of what it means to have the ability to choose. I'm looking for assistance in understanding here, not speculation or finger pointing.

If you're still not convinced, ask yourself: What state of affairs would have to obtain in order for me to have this ability? Or to put it another way: in order for me to have the ability to choose, what would have to be true? It seems clear that the answer to both questions is that there are no circumstances - i.e., there is no conceivable universe - in which you would consider that you have the ability to choose. Which is to say that your "ability to choose" is like a square circle: it doesn't exist because it is logically impossible for it to exist.

Um.. hello. Do you read my posts? This is a question. What I am interested in is your or anyone else's solution to my question of choice in a deterministic, partly deterministic or a random reality.

The problem that you are discussing here has nothing to do with determinism or any other aspect of reality. It is solely a matter of your own confused thinking - in particular, your attempt to reason about something that you have no clear conception of. The only useful outcome of such reasoning is the realization that you are confused. Define clearly what you mean by the "ability to choose", and the question of whether it exists will probably answer itself.

Well after all that you finally get around to attempting to answer the question. Your solution is that I have "no clear conception of" the ability to choose. Well that may be. So far I've gotten: "Choice - the ability to choose". And another definition: "Choice - producing a decision based on input". Rather than just citing the possibility I don' t understand what making a choice means, why don't you offer a definition that solves the mystery of choice in a deterministic and/or a random reality?

madmax2976

So, from our perspective, we do make choices. From an ontological standpoint, it may be that we don't really make choices, we just appear to.

That would seem to be the conclusion of pure determinism. Of course it also appears we would require determinism in order to make a meaningful choice at all.

On the other hand, there could be an element of randomness in unverse, but I'm not sure how this helps. Randomness wouldn't seem to allow for choice anymore than determinism would. Thoughts would just pop into my head randomly. It's difficult to see that as providing for the ability to choose.

excreationist

Randomness doesn't necessarily mean complete randomness. Like in the case of radiactive decay, each atom appears to decay at a random time, but statistically, about half of them decay within the half-life.
In the case of neurons, they "fire" when the inputs reach a certain threshold. If there was some random noise then they might fire more or less readily than usual. And the outputs would just be corrupted. This kind of thing can happen without quantum level randomness though - it could be due to fluctuations in the neuron's oxygen supply or neurotransmitter supply, etc.
BTW, <a href="http://members.ozemail.com.au/~wenke/temp/" target="_blank">here</a> is an artificial neural network that I made last year that you can give random noise to. Initially the noise is set to half way. On the right side of the screen is a list of patterns (that haven't been taught to it yet). With the noise it has "imagination" or "creativity" and it gets some of the patterns correct. Without the noise it gets none of them correct.
You can train the network by highlighting some of the patterns on the right and clicking "train!". It teaches the network the selected patterns 10 times. Note that if you train it some different patterns, it might initially "forget" the original patterns due to conflicts in the neural network. But if you keep on reinforcing the patterns, it can learn all of them. Also, it can "infer" some of the patterns without explicitly being taught them. You can also move the red circle inputs to see what output it will give. If noise is on then it mightn't give a definite answer. I think that our brains are pretty noisy, but like in the case of that computer program, the noise may be deterministic.
You can also kill the neurons in the neural network by clicking on them and they go black. That way you can simulate what happens when people go senile or get brain damage. Killing some neurons has no effect on the patterns you've learned. Killing other neurons might cause it to forget several patterns. But you can often get it to relearn the patterns even if half of the neurons are missing. Or sometimes it just doesn't have enough neurons to learn all the patterns. (Like how mice have a limit to their intelligence).
Well I just thought people might be interested in that... and see that the neural network model can be simulated (on a small scale at the moment).

DRFseven

Madmax, I replied earlier, but I see now that it didn't post. I'd like to address your question on the nature of the behavior of choosing.

When we attempt to decide between two choices, we are adding up all the pluses and minuses associated with possible future scenarios for each alternative we are able to pull out of our experiences and we are combining them for a total weight. The decision is reached by our becoming aware of which side of the line the weight comes in on. The closer to the middle, the harder it is for us to decide; the farther, the easier. The only way we have to judge how negative or positive something's "weight" is, is by the electrochemical associations that experiences with those alternatives activate. If the pathway is established and has not begun to disintegrate through lack of use, the calling up, classifying, and weighing of an experience against a particular objective is automatic. It's just that the results will vary according to how much negative or positive weight experience places on any imagined behavior. Our aim is always to activate the reward pathway in the brain, which requires the coordinated efforts of our rational mind, which "totes up", and our limbic system, which, through rewards and punishment, makes the totals mean something.

To me, this is a hell of a good system. It binds behavioral choice to experiential memory. The alternative would be "thoughtless" behavior. In addition, since our memory mechanism is a part of us, we can say that we make the decisions, even though that memory depends upon external information.

I agree with you, Madmax, that our thinking, being a process, is determined and does not arise "out of the blue." We cannot bootstrap ourselves. I also agree with tronvillain that chaos theory is not needed to explain choices at the behavioral level.

madmax2976

Synaesthesia : In reply to "Physical laws are simply the wrong level to be describing notions such as intentionality and choices." madmax2976 said,

quote: Why? Do the brain states that lead up to our ability to make choices somehow defy physical laws?

Synaesthesia: By "the wrong level" I mean levels of description. A video game can be described as a computer undergoing changes according to the laws of physics. Another level of description would be the processing of information in the millions of tiny switches. Or I could speak of the computer AI moving it's army south in response to harassment by small groups of heavily armed ghols.

I'm not really sure what your trying to say. Please relate this to the human activity of making choices in a deterministic or random universe.

When I am talking about causal chain of events in a video game, I'm never going to give you a narration of every microprocessor switch. I'm going to talk about intentionality, computer AI responding to an attack and abandoning it's previous course of action. The computer obeys the laws of physics but it can be meaningfully (if not totally) described without recourse to physics.

Yes, but without the underlying physics it wouldn't be what it is. I don't know how we can "describe" our way out of the mystery. The physics still applies - don't they?

Each event really follows the laws of physics but in the software levels of description, something other than subatomic forces are being talked about. These are high level concepts; relations between relations and the inter-linking of such structures.

So if we simply describe the making of choices in "high level" terms, the underlying physics somehow isn't what determinism might appear to indicate that it is?. Hmm.

In short, we do indeed make conscious reflective choices. We change our minds, we do and think things for reasons not fully apparent to ourselves and totally inscrutable to others. That we are physical entities does not mean we are not actually thinking and choosing.

What exactly does it mean "we change our minds"? Our "minds" are the result of functioning, physical brains. Since our brains are made of molecules/atoms the behaviour of which follow known laws, then the conclusion would seem to be that our minds also function according to known laws. If so, where does our ability to choose come in?


quote: ...But the paradox seems to be that the very events we "choose" would be determined as well.

Synaesthesia: Our intuitive notions of 'mind' gives us usable information without exhausting the truth and are often in conflict with it. Ironically, the nature of systematic incongruities between reality and our understanding of it can inform and clarify our perception.

Er, okay. What has this to do with my question? Can you clarify?

Synaesthesia

madmax said,
I think this is the pivotal point of miscommunication. In the cascades of electromagnetic potential and the movement of atoms you are wondering where “choice” comes in. What I’m saying is that it actually doesn’t.

Ideas like meaning or will or sports cars aren’t simply about physical events. When we are talking about electrons, protons and neutrons there are no choices or sports cars. A sports car is iron atoms and octane molecules but that is not not it’s most important characteristic. It is a structure within a context.

We may be mistaken about the nature of that structure (eg. erroneous ideas like acausal “free” will.) but that does not mean the structure isn’t real.* The precise physics behind a “choice” isn’t what constitutes our idea of choice and so it is not the determinant of whether they are real.

We can say, for example, that you are looking at a meaningful sentence on your computer monitor but photons bombarding your eyes have no meaning. Is it a paradox to really understand the words that I typed? How can the photons both have meaning and be meaningless?

The resolution becomes clear when we understand the distinction between talking about the meaning of a sentence and talking about it’s physical composition. Certainly their extension may be the same, but we can refer to one thing in two different senses. The meaning isn’t illusionary because photons do not have meaning. The illusion is that “meaning” is meaningful without reference to structure.

That the philosophical notion of free will does not have any correspondence to physics suggests to me that free will is a poor theory, not that free will violates the laws of physics. Please don’t take me for saying that every single idea associated with free will is totally wrong, I just mean that the evidence stands against the theory of acausal will.

The physics of a brain that can make choices and that can have intentionality is totally and utterly indistinguishable from that of a dead lump of matter. The important difference is that it has the unique functional organization.

Regards,
Synaesthesia

*A “real” structure is distinguished from an unreal one by degrees of accuracy with which a system is described.