madmax2976

Well I don't want you to agree with me, I want you to tell me why the argument is wrong.

One question however: Why would a "supernatural" element solve the puzzle? Is a supernatural element deterministic or random? Either way I don't see how it would help.

[ November 30, 2001: Message edited by: madmax2976 ]</p>

tronvillain

A supernatural element does nothing to make the strong interpretation of free will coherent.

Anyway, I think the flaw in the argument lies in what you tacked onto its conclusion. It does not follow from "human events/actions are actually caused by universal laws" that "any sense that we make choices is an illusion." The existence of a causal explanation for a choice does not make it any less a choice.

madmax2976

If so, then this would all center on what is meant by "choice". (i.e. what does it mean for people to make choices.)

Time is short so I'll have to get back to you on that one.

Mageth

Once again, I agree that adding the supernatural element does not help or make the strong interpretation of free will coherent. I stated that to show what disagreeing with the core of madmax's statements leads to.

Would it be more acceptable to restate 3) as "therefore any sense that we could have made a different choice in a given situation is an illusion?"

tronvillain

<a href="http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=choice" target="_blank">This</a> definition seems entirely consistent with a causal picture of the world.

DanishDynamite

Hi, Magethlaro.

While I know this may be interpreted as a sidetrack to the current discussion, I nevertheless feel compelled to disagree with you.

In order for thought experiments to render any useful information, they must be based on what is possible in principle. The only exception to this would seem to be if you were trying to show that an assumption of the thought experiment was wrong. An example of the latter would be: Suppose a "heavier" object on an airless Earth falls faster when dropped from a given height, than a less heavy object. This assumption could quickly be shown to lead to a paradox.

ohwilleke

My take.

First, quantum physics plus chaos, certainly makes it possible that our universe is not deterministic in the Newtonian Clockwork universe sense, and is not necessarily deterministic even on a large scale. Most quantum phenomena, while random on a local scale, are so predicably random that deterministic laws and reality are virtually indistinguishable at a large scale. But, in chaotic systems, quantum effects translate in to non-local non-determinism.

Note that this doesn't necessarily imply that the human brain is in fact significantly chaotic. It could be, but I don't think we have clear evidence on whether there are or aren't chaotic processes that are chaotic right down to atomic and molecular differences in initial conditio that woud be subject to random quantum effects.

Quite likely, a brain, like the weather, is chaotic in that an exact prediction of its actions is in practice (and if this ties into quantum effects, even in theory) impossible. But, just like weather follows certain general trends that we call climate, the brain follows certain general trends even if its exact conditions are not deterministic.

Second, the crux of your analysis in point three is that neither randomness, nor determinism, is a "choice". I'm not convinced that this is an accurate definition of what a choice is. A choice is basically the process of receiving input and producing a decision based upon that input. A jury's decision to find someone guilty or innocent based upon the facts of a case, is no less a choice because the outcome in a particular case was predictable. A determination of who wins Powerball, while very nearly random, is still a choice of which of millions of players win.

Now, you will protest, "I didn't really mean 'choice', what I meant was, do people have free will." One way of partially defining, "free will" has been equate this with the non-existence of "fate". In other words, if there is only one possible future, which is already determined, then we as individuals are merely playing out a script, and this is not free will. With this definition of "free will", quantum physics plus chaos in brain activity would imply "free will" since precisely the same initial conditions could lead to different outcomes so that what does on in your brain does influence how the part of the universe that you are capable of impacting turns out. It is contrary to the notion of "fate" which a purely deterministic world would have.

If a partially random brain is not free will, and a deterministic brain is not free will, what is free will? A definition of free will that itself excludes any possibile set of conditions satisfying it, isn't a very helpful one.

Synaesthesia

It is quantum theory which seems to suggest that there is an absolute limit on the accuracy with which we can measure the position of particles. For most purposes this limitation is unimportant. When predicting such a massive and nonlinear system such as the universe however, small indeterminancies will exponentially widen the margin of error.

madmax2976,

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.

The term "will" you used here can be take in two senses. Involved in the first is the fact that a human can percieve a situation and consciously decide between multiple possible courses of action. There is nothing illusionary about this, it can be measured and observed and corroborated to any degree we desire. Second is the idea that descisions are a supernatural power that allows us to make totally uncaused descisions. Materialism is not the rejection of both of them, it is the rejection of the latter.

madmax2976

But its not very helpful. "Choice: The ability to choose."

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

madmax2976

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ohwilleke:
[QB]Second, the crux of your analysis in point three is that neither randomness, nor determinism, is a "choice".

Not quite. I'm questioning whether choice is possible in a deterministic or a random universe.

I'm not convinced that this is an accurate definition of what a choice is. A choice is basically the process of receiving input and producing a decision based upon that input. A jury's decision to find someone guilty or innocent based upon the facts of a case, is no less a choice because the outcome in a particular case was predictable. A determination of who wins Powerball, while very nearly random, is still a choice of which of millions of players win.

But I didn't define what a choice is. I'm trying to understand how choices are made given the apparent state of the universe - whether deterministic, mostly deterministic and partly random or whatever.

You defined choice as "making a decision". How does this define what a choice is? It seems to just another way of saying the same thing - I choose, I decide.

Regarding your Powerball analogy, are you saying that a computer or a machine with floating balls in it acutally makes a choice as to what the number will be?

Now, you will protest, "I didn't really mean 'choice', what I meant was, do people have free will."

Not hardly. I'm not really sure what "free will" even is. If it means more than just our ability to choose, then I'd have to know what else is implied by the term.

One way of partially defining, "free will" has been equate this with the non-existence of "fate". In other words, if there is only one possible future, which is already determined, then we as individuals are merely playing out a script, and this is not free will.

Which, to me, is the same thing as saying we don't really make choices. We do the things we do because events are determined - including our very brain states.

With this definition of "free will", quantum physics plus chaos in brain activity would imply "free will" since precisely the same initial conditions could lead to different outcomes so that what does on in your brain does influence how the part of the universe that you are capable of impacting turns out. It is contrary to the notion of "fate" which a purely deterministic world would have.

Or does quantum physics plus chaos lead to randomness which doesn't appear any more conducive to our making of choices than determinism does?

If a partially random brain is not free will, and a deterministic brain is not free will, what is free will? A definition of free will that itself excludes any possibile set of conditions satisfying it, isn't a very helpful one.

Well my definition of free will is simply our ability to make choices. I'm not trying to "exclude" anything. I'm just trying to understand how it works, no matter what kind of universe is envisioned - deterministic or random.

[ November 30, 2001: Message edited by: madmax2976 ]</p>