tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post110582719346844462..comments2024-01-13T18:57:18.243-05:00Comments on Information Processing: Free will and determinism: a physicist's perspectiveSteve Hsuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02428333897272913660noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-68225867174410435562008-05-01T22:48:00.000-04:002008-05-01T22:48:00.000-04:00you fail to consider the compatibilist view, on wh...you fail to consider the compatibilist view, on which even a strictly deterministic universe may be endowed with free creatures just in case their desires and their actions line up properly. but even if incompatibilism is true, and free will does not exist if determinism is true, your post fails to show that free will is an illusion.<BR/><BR/>you say: "A classical robot which is fed occasionally is72https://www.blogger.com/profile/09732908567522536014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-1106094408260213072005-01-18T19:26:00.000-05:002005-01-18T19:26:00.000-05:00Charles Peirce was ultimately more insecure than W...Charles Peirce was ultimately more insecure than William James and longed for encompassing or absolute answers to philosophical or psychological questions where James was content with conditional observations and answers. Remember "the Fox and the Hedgehog?" Well, Peirce knew he should be a fox and know many things but oh so wanted to be a hedgehog and know one big thing. For James the Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-1106085980207885322005-01-18T17:06:00.000-05:002005-01-18T17:06:00.000-05:00Well, I'd say that the traditional conception of f...Well, I'd say that the traditional conception of free will is something more than "unscientific." It requires us to suspend logic beyond a certain point. Because if you claim you have a soul, the same questions that applied to the brain will logically apply to it too. Do all the decisions of the soul have an ultimate external cause (for instance, God's will) or do they not?<br /><br />The Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-1106083455755784072005-01-18T16:24:00.000-05:002005-01-18T16:24:00.000-05:00"Steven Weinberg says (and I agree) that Charles S..."Steven Weinberg says (and I agree) that Charles Sanders Pierce said all that can be said about the problem of free will when he claimed that all that matters is that we have _the subjective experience of choice_."<br /><br />Nicely argued.<br /><br />AnneAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-1106074043188990122005-01-18T13:47:00.000-05:002005-01-18T13:47:00.000-05:00Wait, did I miss something? If you are arguing on ...Wait, did I miss something? If you are arguing on purely philosophical grounds (not within the context of physics) you are not restricted to either an external cause for each of our actions or simple randomness. Why not a "soul" existing in some higher realm which is not governed by physical laws? This is the "traditional" (albeit intrinsically unscientific) response to the free will question ;-)Steve Hsuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02428333897272913660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-1106073257315942592005-01-18T13:34:00.000-05:002005-01-18T13:34:00.000-05:00Actually, the notion of free will is highly proble...Actually, the notion of free will is highly problematic on purely philosophical grounds. The problem is very simple and is clearly stated in many texts, but in my experience very few people, even among the highly educated, are aware of the problem. Here goes:<br /><br />Every action we perform must ultimately be traceable to an external cause (genetics, environmental influence, divine Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-1106000919213664122005-01-17T17:28:00.000-05:002005-01-17T17:28:00.000-05:00The neuroscientist's perspective would agree that ...The neuroscientist's perspective would agree that there is no free will. However, arbitrarily small perturbations probably do alter decisions. Thus, unless we can monitor every single input, including thermodynamic fluctuations in the movement of ions and neurotransmitters, I don't think we can predict too far into the future what a person will do exactly. We can probably predict what a personCarson C. Chowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08464737817585277975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-1105983856944757942005-01-17T12:44:00.000-05:002005-01-17T12:44:00.000-05:00Max,
It seems to me there are lots of moments whe...Max,<br /><br />It seems to me there are lots of moments when decisions just happen. I honestly can't trace back specific reasons for many small decisions during the day, like whether to click a link or stand up and stretch at a particular moment.<br /><br />The reasoned decisions like cold vs delicious food seem to have good evolutionary purposes of optimizing several factors which impact gene Steve Hsuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02428333897272913660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-1105983271877786882005-01-17T12:34:00.000-05:002005-01-17T12:34:00.000-05:00MFA,
Your point is well taken - when I said simul...MFA,<br /><br />Your point is well taken - when I said simulated by classical processes I meant classical statistical mechanics, which nevertheless isn't completely determininstic, as there may be a random element. (I say may be because if the number of molecules involved is large enough the behavior is pretty predictable.) So, perhaps the most honest model is deterministic machine with small Steve Hsuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02428333897272913660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-1105978181289219572005-01-17T11:09:00.000-05:002005-01-17T11:09:00.000-05:00Very fascinating.
The only "weak link" in the ar...Very fascinating. <br /><br />The only "weak link" in the argument IMO is the following.<br /><br />"However, it seems that the functioning of our brains is almost entirely classical. The number of atoms involved in the firing of a synapse, or other chemical reactions in brain functioning, is quite large, and there is little quantum coherence. "<br /><br />Even if there are no macroscopic quantumAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-1105976170122593612005-01-17T10:36:00.000-05:002005-01-17T10:36:00.000-05:00"It may be that consciousness doesn't exist as a t..."It may be that consciousness doesn't exist as a thing in itself but that it is a necessary bi-product of the structure of our brains. The fact that it seems important to us (indeed it seems to be the purpose of us) doesn't make it so."<br /><br />Please develop this interesting comment. Bertrand Russell argued along this line to a degree, if I understand the comment properly. I take the Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-1105969625561720632005-01-17T08:47:00.000-05:002005-01-17T08:47:00.000-05:00It may be that consciousness doesn't exist as a th...It may be that consciousness doesn't exist as a thing in itself but that it is a necessary bi-product of the structure of our brains. The fact that it seems important to us (indeed it seems to be the purpose of us) doesn't make it so.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-1105902637862521842005-01-16T14:10:00.000-05:002005-01-16T14:10:00.000-05:00William James, Does Consciousness Exist?
'Thought...William James, Does Consciousness Exist?<br /><br />'Thoughts' and 'things' are names for two sorts of object, which common sense will always find contrasted and will always practically oppose to each other. Philosophy, reflecting on the contrast, has varied in the past in her explanations of it, and may be expected to vary in the future. At first, 'spirit and matter,' 'soul and body,' stood for Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-1105902066789168782005-01-16T14:01:00.000-05:002005-01-16T14:01:00.000-05:00Anne,
The Web is really great - I was able to fin...Anne,<br /><br />The Web is really great - I was able to find the James essay here:<br />http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/James/consciousness.htm<br /><br />The problem with discussing free will is that hard-headed physicists will ask "How do you define free will?", which is why I approach from the opposite direction of determinism. Consciousness is similar to free will in that we all know what it Steve Hsuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02428333897272913660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-1105892031910503502005-01-16T11:13:00.000-05:002005-01-16T11:13:00.000-05:00Note: William James, Does Consciousness Exist? and...Note: William James, Does Consciousness Exist? and Will to Believe. Pleasing reads.<br /><br />AnneAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-1105877712977608602005-01-16T07:15:00.000-05:002005-01-16T07:15:00.000-05:00Wonderful post as usual. We must have a post of t...Wonderful post as usual. We must have a post of the arts now and then :)<br /><br />AnneAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-1105877633073962542005-01-16T07:13:00.000-05:002005-01-16T07:13:00.000-05:00Russ Abbott
"I suppose a distinction between free...Russ Abbott<br /><br />"I suppose a distinction between free will and consciousness helps. One might have illusary free will without giving up consciousness, in which case consciousness is simply a presentation to oneself of what one has already decided."<br /><br />Nicely phrased. My father would have agreed with Steve, but he would have added strongly that the illusion is quite enough to hope Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-1105845926556680742005-01-15T22:25:00.000-05:002005-01-15T22:25:00.000-05:00Well, if a deterministic robot could decide at som...Well, if a deterministic robot could decide at some point to write a blog, I suppose I could too... As you point out, I am finessing the issue of consciousness here. I am assuming that it can arise within classical physics from a sufficiently complex information processing device ;-)<br /><br />I did read Dennett's book many years ago, and I believe I agreed with him at the time.<br /><br />I Steve Hsuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02428333897272913660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-1105845771592860002005-01-15T22:22:00.000-05:002005-01-15T22:22:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Steve Hsuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02428333897272913660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-1105839272788079092005-01-15T20:34:00.000-05:002005-01-15T20:34:00.000-05:00Choosing what to have for lunch is one thing. Dec...Choosing what to have for lunch is one thing. Deciding what to write in a blog piece seems like another. How does one talk about the latter in terms of the illusion of free will? <br /><br />I suppose a distinction between free will and consciousness helps. One might have illusary free will without giving up consciousness, in which case consciousness is simply a presentation to oneself of Russ Abbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15431389045571531450noreply@blogger.com