Isn't our brain just biological machine? The output completely depends on the input(DNA, environment), but we don't have control over the input at all. Is free will a delusion?
Is free will a delusion?
(40 posts) (15 voices)-
If it's a delusion, it's a useful one or we wouldn't have evolved it. It's an expensive trait. It must have a corresponding payoff.
I don't think it's accurate to say we "evolved" a delusion of free will. We simply don't have the ability to be actively conscious of the mechanics behind our actions or thoughts.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Elemenope
ModeratorWe simply don't have the ability to be actively conscious of the mechanics behind our actions or thoughts.
Our thoughts hold a simplified model of our thoughts. Problem I see is, T and Model[T] run in parallel, and Model[T], though it is ostensibly part of the set T, must necessarily disagree with it in some details, because it is a simplified model of T. Doesn't that necessarily and pathologically lead to dialethic results?
Posted 2 years ago # -
I felt compelled to post this:
Posted 2 years ago # -
A List
MemberI don't think evolving a delusion of free will and the blind spot are in the same category.
My point was that evolution doesn't always follow a purpose or usefulness. Whatever happens happens. So a product of evolution doesn't have to be useful; like the blind spot or swelling prostate gland. If a delusion of free will is useless, that would explain why we have it despite its uselessness.
But if it is useful, it is probably because delusional people were less likely to be emos. Wouldn't you be more motivated to live if you believe you have full control in your life?
@Eudaimonist
I think it is possible that we evolved this way. Being more conscious of the mechanics behind our thoughts can cause us to be depressed. Maybe natural selection is holding us from developing the ability to be more conscious of it. Or maybe we just evolved that way for no reason; like the blind spot.Posted 2 years ago # -
Problem I see is, T and Model[T] run in parallel, and Model[T], though it is ostensibly part of the set T, must necessarily disagree with it in some details, because it is a simplified model of T.
It doesn't disagree with it, but simply provides an incomplete picture of the events as they actually are. I don't see why they must necessarily disagree at all.
@Shin
I don't think any conscious beings are aware of the mechanics behind their thoughts, so how could this trait have "evolved" in order to sway us away from depression?
Posted 2 years ago # -
ender
MemberIn my opinion, free will is an illusion - not due to any psychological reasons, but due to chemistry and physics. I think that if we were able to create a perfect simulation of the current universe (which is for obvious reasons impossible), we would get to the exact same point where we're today.
If you could put the same person through the same experience multiple times (perfectly replicating all circumstances - this includes what this person knows), he'd always behave the same.
Posted 2 years ago # -
UrsaMinor
MemberIf free will is an illusion, then morality, ethics and philosophy are all meaningless. Just sayin'.
You can make a sort of Pascal's Wager about this.
If free will doesn't exist and we pretend it does and act in a certain way that would be considered 'good' if we were free moral agents, we're doing it because we have no choice. No brownie points for us.
Likewise, if free will doesn't exist and we recognize this and act in a manner that would be considered 'bad' if we were free moral agents, we're doing it because we have no choice. No slap on the wrist for us.
If free will does exist and we pretend that it does not, we run a risk of committing moral and ethical errors by not assuming responsibility for our actions.
If free will does exist and we recognize it, it is no guarantee that we will behave morally, but at least there is the awareness of responsibility to tickle our consciences.
The best decision is to assume that free will exists. If it does not exist, our behavior doesn't matter anyway, and there are no moral consequences for being wrong about its existence. If it does exist and we recognize it, we can strive to be moral. The only case where we get into serious trouble is if free will exists and we pretend that it doesn't and deny that there is any such thing as moral responsibility.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Elemenope
ModeratorIt doesn't disagree with it, but simply provides an incomplete picture of the events as they actually are. I don't see why they must necessarily disagree at all.
Take any computer program, and change the significant digits being preserved from one calculation the the next by one decimal place. The outputs of the program will quickly diverge from the original program.
Minor changes in simple programs will lead to divergent results. Now the human brain is a very complicated set of programs, and the conscious model of human thought is orders of magnitudes less complicated. I would expect their outputs to diverge wildly, even if it were a very good model (which we have no reason to believe it is).
Now, if it is a useful model *at all*, what it probably does is sum across histories to create probabilistic models for different states of mind, since for any given specific instance its model will be so far off the actual state of mind so as to be useless. It is, at best, predictive in general cases. It's why we can imagine what we would do, given certain circumstances, but the reality of what we do do given those circumstances diverges significantly from the prediction.
Posted 2 years ago # -
WarbVIII
MemberNot sure about free will in a religious or philisophical case existing,particullarly in the religious sense anyway.
Yet,free will as choice in eveday life existing as far as most thinking creatures are concerned sure as heck seems to exist, it's how people can overcome fear and choose to run towards someone shooting at them(as happened during the shooting in arizona for example),or choosing to run towards a fire as a fireman..which at times is trumped still by instinct but can be overcome but choice and the application of willpower. I would also say since people can and do change even after making certain choices the same way for years prior to that point,and then not making those choices afterwards. Choice exists,and thus free will exists in at least the real world.I am also sure that if you could replicate things again and again things would not turn out the same everytime. The best current way to show that though would be twins,most turn out incredibly alike given most or all of the same parameters,but some are incredibly different..even so far as some pairs have a gay and a straight member as an example. Then their are those twins raised differently,often when seperated at birth or whatnot, that also either are scarily similar though having had wildly different upbringings,yet some are nothing alike.
I think god does play dice with the universe unlike Albert..(granted I don't think god exists but so what). Choice and choices definitely exist,thus free will in humanity exists at least...wether or not most people use it or not is another question entirely.Posted 2 years ago # -
WarbVIII
MemberEnder not sure how if free will exists it has to extend to that level at all, if will can and does overcome chemical and biological instinct does it have to change the processes I don't think so...heck training and culture can often trump these things as well(monagamy for instance) and that definitely doesn't in any way extend down to a subatomic level. Choosing to not follow purely chemical and instinctive things are something people,I would say all people,do on a daily basis..it's also been shown choice and will can trump genetics...someone can become really good at something,perhaps even great even though it's something they are not predisposed to be good or great at lots of example abound of that in the world blind and deaf musicians for instance..things like these tell me people have free will and choices...and I thought quantum phsics kinda agreed with free will(though I am by no means an expert..nor do I probably really understand it all that well).
Posted 2 years ago # -
UrsaMinor
MemberI'm not sure that quantum mechanics says anything about free will. Yes, it does demolish classical determinism (a necessary precondition to the existence of free will), but what does it leave us with? If what we decide to do is ultimately based on random quantum fluctuations resolving one way or the other, how does this give us free will? The script may not be written in advance, but neither do we necessarily have any control over it.
Posted 2 years ago # -
"Now the human brain is a very complicated set of programs,"
That doesn't seem quite accurate to me.* A program requires someone to program it and it follows the logic of the program. The brain doesn't do that. Also, there is parallel processing on a massive scale in the brain. Consciousness seems to be an emergent feature of the many minute processes of each individual neuron... like the way an ant colony has complex behavior emerging from many simple ant behaviors.
http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/~goster/pdfs/NeuroComplexity.pdf
*(I make this statement as a person who knows a whole lot about brains and not a whole lot about computers.)
Posted 2 years ago # -
UrsaMinor
MemberI know less about brains than LRA, but I am both a professional biologist and professional software engineer. My take? The brain is like a computer...maybe. The brain does parallel processing, but so do modern computers. Neurons can be compared to bits in computer memory- they are either firing or not (which sweeps a great deal of subtlety under the rug, since their firing thresholds can vary with over time and with training). I agree that consciousness is probably an emergent feature of the system.
The brain probably follows rules that most closely resemble what we call "fuzzy logic" to arrive at decisions. Beyond some basic autonomic functions and instinctive processes, it has to be trained to do what it does. But I'd be really surprised if there weren't some core logic rules buried deep in there somewhere. Otherwise, human infants would have to figure the rules out for themselves and learn how to learn, with no innate basis for it. That seems a pretty tall order, and there are just too many similarities cross-culturally about how infants learn for it to be a coincidence. So my guess is, there are a few hardwired basic rules and a lot of parallel processing power, and the application of fuzzy logic whose rules are learned with experience.
But not being a brain or behavorial specialist, I must admit that my guesses are hardly better than what the average college graduate could come up with. We still have a lot to learn about the brain and the nature of consciousness. Come back in twenty years and ask me again.
Posted 2 years ago # -
"Neurons can be compared to bits in computer memory- they are either firing or not (which sweeps a great deal of subtlety under the rug, since their firing thresholds can vary with over time and with training)"
Well, these kind of statements worry me.* Each neuron has many thousands of dendritic branches and many thousands of axonal terminals producing exhibitory or inhibitory chemicals that may or may not lead to long term potentiation that may or may not lead to transcription of DNA that may or may not lead to neuronal plasticity. I don't know of any program that is like that.
I recently read Ray Kurzweil's "The Age of Spiritual Machines" and I disagreed with some of the more "ambitious" claims in that book.
*Again, I just don't have enough knowledge about computers, but my understanding is that there are no computers in existence today that can do what the human brain can do (that is, give rise to consciousness) and also that there may never be (or there might-- who knows!).
Posted 2 years ago # -
I think free will is not wholly free... there are clearly biological limits, socioeconomic limits, even geopolitical limits that stop people from total freedom of will. That being said, clearly we observe people making choices.
That makes a very complicated situation for moral praise/blameworthiness. How do we sort out whether or not a person chose a certain behavior or was compelled to do it or some combination of the two?
This has huge implications for the criminal "justice" system, which to me seems less like a system of "justice" and more like a barbaric torture device that hardens people and makes them worse.
Posted 2 years ago # -
UrsaMinor
MemberTrue, there are no computers today that can give rise to consciousness. The jury is still out on whether or not this is possible. I think part of the problem is the elusive nature of consciousness- we haven't agreed yet on exactly what it is, so it's hard to say whether it is possible to build a conscious machine when 'conscious' still has an unknown value. If it's just a matter of sufficient complexity and plasticity for consciousness to emerge, then sure, in theory, some day we will be able to build something that complex and behaviorally plastic. If it's not...well, we'll have to figure out what that sine qua non is and go from there. I am not persuaded by arguments either way at this point.
Although they exist solely on the experimental lab bench at this point, there are trainable logic arrays whose components can alter their response thresholds to stimuli. They learn and adapt. This seems like a step in the direction of mimicking natural neuronal function more closely. Where this will lead, I can't say.
Posted 2 years ago # -
After listening to the excellent discussion of determinism and free will on this podcast (this is part one of a series on determinism from the excellent podcast Reasonable Doubts) http://doubtreligion.blogspot.com/2009/01/episode-29-free-willy-vs-determinator.html
I'm convinced that free will is an illusion, but it is an illusion that is a necessary emergent condition of consciousness. (That is, free will is the process of consciousness acting. I'm not a philosopher so I may not be using the language precisely...)That is my current belief until Elemenope comes along to shatter my assumptions with his piercing observations. That's what usually happens here. :)
Posted 2 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.