DRFseven

Yes; usually they go by the label, nondeterminists, but I can't speak for all, of course.

Based on Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, the objection is that if there are uncertain things, there are undetermined things and that maybe thoughts could be uncaused. However, if they were uncaused (as random neural firings), they would be irrational as well as remaining non-volitional. Obviously our thoughts must be determined by reasoning or we would never have survived as a species.

Spinoza, maybe. Or Newton? I really like Spinoza.

Yes, it's one of those things that's hard to think about. My brother, who is a true genius, introduced me to the subject when he was in fifth grade (and I was in ninth!). It took me til I was almost an adult to come around to agree with him about free will. His thoughts are grounded in math and mine in psychology, so our paths are a little different, but we always seem to eventually meet at major conclusions. By the way, if you're going to read Penrose's The Emperor's New Mind, I hope you have some grounding in math or AI!

As luck would have it, I base it on Cognitive Science. Before the advent of functional brain imaging, we already knew a lot about how other animals and people learn, and we knew there was no such thing as uncaused thoughts. We knew that most of our behavior is not hardwired and that we build reasoning schemes in relation to what we are exposed to, and that everything we think is built of memories that exist, not in a vacuum, but within the framework of those cognitive schemes. Now, with fMRIs, we can watch it in realtime and researchers can predict when a decision has been made before the subjects find out, themselves. This demonstrates what we have known for a long time about conclusions being reached, not chosen.

No, we're long way from being able to assign valence weights to alternatives, at least in human intelligence; though there is progress being made on that score in the AI realm. But just think; it's so complex! Even a minor decision would involve vast amounts of memory, each "bit" tagged with a value (and tagged this way due to previous experience and tagging of other variables). So every individual's tagging is unique and not every memory bit is active during any one decision.

Important Note: When you refer to seeing whether or not the most postively weighted alternative is actually the most favorable one, you illustrate a critically wrong assumption. These tags are relative only to the individual and there IS no absolute most or least favorable. The individual always tags according to his/her opinions of how things are and not to how things are, per se. The two may or may not coincide. For instance, two people may tag the same variable entirely differently (example: going to the store involves several variables; i.e. getting dressed, pumping gas, going to the ATM). One or more of those variables might be weighted negatively in the your case, and positively in the mine, depending upon prior memories of experiences involving those variables. In reality, there would be many more variables involved and most of them would not be accessed consciously. So when someone says, "Do you want to go to the store or not?", you don't really choose what to think; all those memory patterns are set in motion and you find out what you think about it.

I think of determinism as science, and I am mainly interested in psychological determinism. But that's just me.

[ June 14, 2002: Message edited by: DRFseven ]</p>

luvluv

I have to say that I expected this thread to be several more pages long by now. I have some more points.

DRF, you say that in order for there uncaused behavior by virtue of the Uncertainty Principle it would have to be irrational behavior. Aren't insane people irrational? Is their behavior determined?

"Now, with fMRIs, we can watch it in realtime and researchers can predict when a decision has been made before the subjects find out, themselves."

I don't understand this. If he doesn't know a decision has been reached, then the decision hasn't been reached. Since your fMri machine can't tell you WHAT decision he reached, how can you be so sure that his decision occured when you believe it did?

"Important Note: When you refer to seeing whether or not the most postively weighted alternative is actually the most favorable one, you illustrate a critically wrong assumption."

No I was only asking whether or not it was possible to see if people ALWAYS picked the choice that had the most valence weight. As a Christian, I very often make decisions that put me at odds with my family, community, and the general populace (that a piece of man-candy like myself is now celibate has not gone over well with the ladies, I assure you ). I, in fact, very often have to make choices I dread to make out of obedience to my faith (for instance, I hate nothing on this planet like fasting). My periods of fasting (particuarly one period in my life, during which I was quite sure I was having a nervous breakdown though I was never officially diagnosed) are among, probably, the worst periods of my life... so if this whole thing is about experience it is hard for me to fathom why I still fast. All of my experiences with it have been extremely unenjoyable, in fact I don't think there is a single activity in all creation that I dislike quite as much, yet I do it several times a year out of obedience. You might say that I value God's approval over the experience of fasting, but isn't that "valuing" of approval free-will? Otherwise, what is that valuing?

And, as Gurdur says, I often do things that I know by experience I do not enjoy, for the promise of rewards of things I have not experienced. So surely experience is not all encompasing in this thing.

And what of the imagination? Are you saying that when I daydream about fantastic things that do not exist, things even unimagined, that those things are somehow determined? Even granting that I am now attempting to imagine something outlandish only by the prompting of disproving determinism, can it be said that the PARTICULAR fantastic image in my head is predetermined? Surely it is somewhat shaped by previous experiences, but not totally DETERMINED by them. I CAN imagine, literally, anything (within the limits of the human mind of course) so when I choose to imagine the absurd or irrational, what prompts me to that SPECIFIC image?

I would also like you to address Gurdur's argument of a refusal to believe. I know that some people simply, as a function of logic, CANNOT believe certain things, but it is also true that many people WILL NOT believe certain things.

Much of what you are saying is not something that I would disagree with or that would conflict Christian teaching. I know that people cannot know things they have not heard of, nor can they choose from options that have never been presented to them. The only obstacle in the way of our agreement is whether or not people ALWAYS choose that which is most rewarding to them on the basis of experience only. To that I would have to disagree based on personal experience.

In response to the title of this post, I would actually argue that free will resides in consciousness. In self-awareness and in the thought stream.

Can you refer me to any dissenting opinions, from secular nondeterminists?

DRFseven

That's because it would be random blips of neurons, totally unconnected. It would be as if, after being asked to count by threes, someone momentarily applied an electrode to your brain; you might suddenly blurt out "Where's the lemonade?", somewhere between the nine and the fifteen.

No, their behavior is so obviously determined (by functional problems) that even the criminal justice system recognizes it.

They give subjects decision-making tasks (such as that the subject has to decide when to make a hand motion) and the imaging scans are recorded during the exercise. The change in neural action potential comes before the conscious neural registration of the intent to act. The initiation informs the conscious brain that it is making a decision some fraction of a second before the brain knows it. So there is action potential, conscious thought, action.

Gotta go for now.

luvluv

"No, their behavior is so obviously determined (by functional problems) that even the criminal justice system recognizes it."

I understand that, overall, their insanity is determined, but what of the SPECIFIC CONTENT of their insanity? Like in the example I used above, if I decide to spontaneously string together a random nonsense phrase, is the specific content of the nonsense I (seemingly) randomnly choose determined? And if so, how?

DRFseven

But surely you realize that there is something you desire MORE than the relief of not having to worry about fasting; that is, the satisfaction you realize from your perception that you are serving your god.

Most all of us are capable of some degree of postponement of instant gratification in return for the greater satisfaction of the longer-term gratification. When you fast, the neural groups that comprise all your accessible memories associated with fasting are cued, and if you happen to have learned that putting up with discomfort for a greater long-run satisfaction is rewarding (which obviously you have), then you'll put it off.

Well, of course you have learned, like the rest of us, that future rewards can be worth the trouble or risk and you have developed mental schema based on your experiences to detect whether or not the trouble or risk seems worth it. This is the ONLY way you would be able to navigate through life; we must be able to learn from experience and extrapolate.

Rather, you can imagine anything within the limits of YOUR mind, which is entirely formed of your perceptions. This is like the previous question; we form schemas of "what is possible" based on what we know. We can imagine things that have to do with the dimensions with which we are familiar in our world, but outside of that, how would it be possible? Most people have enough trouble just trying to imagine what time really is. What if I asked you to imagine, say, the seventh dimension, and describe it. Could you? Where would you start?

That's just folk psychology. People are simply unable to REFUSE to believe something. They can SAY they refuse to believe a thing, but if their perceptions permit that belief, they have no choice. For instance, people are always "refusing" to believe that someone was capable of committing some crime, and then turning around and believing it once that person confesses. All "refusals" have simply not come up against evidentiary requirements necessary to render a judgement of "true" in that particular mental construct.

And I think I've explained that sufficiently. Do you agree with what I said before that we always choose what we preceive to be the most rewarding option, even if it necessitates unrewarding behavior before the end reward can be obtained?

I don't have a way to respond to that because I don't have a very good handle on what I think consciousness is. I know that thought is essentially "running" memory, which is mitigated replays of past events and newly associated, which, to me, is about as opposite of truly free as it can be.

DRFseven

There are so many forms of "insanity" that we'd have to have a specific example of behavior to deconstruct. How about a schizophrenic woman who kills her children because she thinks evil aliens have entered her home and taken over the bodies of her children, which they plan to use to cause the downfall of our whole planet? This is actually a very common delusion, which is why I used it. Why did she kill her children? Because she thought they weren't her children; they were evil aliens intent on destroying the world. That's obviously determined and it's rational according to her belief system (her perception was that this information was relayed to her telepathically and in code, through a video recording device at a local convenience store). If aliens took over the bodies of your children, so that your children were actually already dead, and by killing the aliens you could at least save the world, wouldn't you do it? Various factors, including genetics, disease, and her personal experiences determined what she thought. Then again, maybe they really WERE aliens; it's our personal belief systems that DO NOT ALLOW US to believe her.

Yes, it's determined, too. Think of "free association" tests; they are supposedly random words thrown together, but in reality, they test your automatic associations (neural memory-linkages). Even coin flips and dice tosses are determined by comfort levels; if you pay attention when you do it, you can begin to sense that you wait for a "message" to let you know when to release the dice or whether to call heads or tails. The comfort levels are determined by past experience (including physiology, "good luck", favorite numbers, etc., which is why gamblers often have favorite numbers, etc.).

luvluv

"Rather, you can imagine anything within the limits of YOUR mind, which is entirely formed of your perceptions. This is like the previous question; we form schemas of "what is possible" based on what we know. We can imagine things that have to do with the dimensions with which we are familiar in our world, but outside of that, how would it be possible?"

Certainly I can only imagine within the limits of my mind, but within the limits of my mind are probably BILLIONS of possible things to imagine. So when I decide to purposefully imagine something random or absurd, what determines that specific absurd or random thought out of the BILLIONS of ones I choose not to imagine?

"Yes, it's determined, too. Think of "free association" tests; they are supposedly random words thrown together, but in reality, they test your automatic associations (neural memory-linkages)."

Can you describe these "free-association" tests? You mean like Rorshach blots or word association tests? Those would be very different from my purposefully trying to think a randomn and absurd thought. I can think any randomn and absurd thought, so why do I think of the ones I do? It would seem to me if I had the power to be deliberately non-rational in an undetermined way, then I do have free will. Even if the overall attempt to be non-rational was in response to my overall need to disprove determinism, the specific content of the mental image was not determined. It was limited by my imagination, but it was not selected from any of the billions of other potentially irrational thoughts in my head for any rational reason.

DRFseven

Memory. I have a feeling that when you think of imagination, you are not thinking of memory. But without memory, you couldn't name a single word, much less string several together. Memory is an automated physical process of change in composition of cell membrane which affects future firing, and this firing is the only way we have of thinking. Memory associations are literally associated cell linkages that get "turned on" by codes (firing weights). Here is a very good link for <a href="http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m2250/9_40/78545943/p3/article.jhtml?term=%2BShort-term+%2Bmemory+%2BResearch" target="_blank">the physiology of memory</a>.

Free association exercises are given to clue the therapist (or tester) in on unconscious associations the patient (or subject) presents.
Associations between words can be emotional, semantic, triggered by sound; anything. The thing is, there are overt and covert associations between memories. If you deny that I think of the term "flower pot" due to its association with a previous thought, what do you think physically causes that particular grouping of neurons that represents the term "flower pot" to fire?

luvluv

I don't see how that suffices DRF. Certainly, I can only string togther a series of words I have in my memory, but what determines the SPECIFIC string of words that I produce? I know plenty of words. If my whole intention is to purposely string together a series of words for the singular purpose of spouting a bit of giberish, what makes me string the SPECIFIC nonsense phrase out of the trillions of possible words that are all equally in my memory?

DRFseven

Actual physical associations between neuron groups. One neural constellation (representing a word) is linked to another (representing another word) by electrochemical transmission. One word causes you to think of another word because of the way they are coded.

If you have a firing pattern in memory, you had an experience to create the action potential to enable the memory. No experience = no memory of the experience. No memory = no thinking. Your thoughts are caused by experience and that experience establishes the threshhold at which the cued neural group involved in that experience will refire (remember).