patrick.net

Sounds like an interesting book. Certainly there are many things humans are hardwired to do or not do. I believe Pinker wrote a book, Blank Slate, on the subject of where Science can put down theories of Blank Slate, Ghost in the Machine, and one other one I forget because they fly in the face of evidence.

Reciprocity and the idea that to whom much is given, much is expected is hardwired social behavior. Randians are anti-human because the idea of collective responsibility, reciprocity, and altruism/nobilesse oblige is hardwired human primate social behavior. As a psychopath, Ayn Rand saw this as a weakness as most psychopaths do. However, interestingly she wanted to bring down everyone to her subhuman level instead of exploiting that weakness while hiding her 'difference' like most other psychopaths are wont to do.

Any highlights that stood out for you in this book?

Not if you follow trends.

Free will has a price and its rewards. You are free to make your own mind, but you are powerless to control the outcome. If you focus on the outcome then you really aren't following your free will.

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that's clear-
I will choose Free Will.

CaptainShuddup says

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

Ah, ha ha...probably my favorite Rush line.

But Geddy Lee was/is not a neuroscientist.

While I have not read the book in question I think I am a little familiar with the ideas and it is quite possible that we actually have no "freewill".

Here is something relevant from another thread about freewill:
leoj707 says

...an episode of Radio Lab discussed "Loops" one of which was transient global amnesia.
http://www.radiolab.org/2011/oct/04/

Transient global amnesia disrupts short-term memory, but leaves the person's consciousness more-or-less intact and it wears of over time.

The funny thing is that people remember only what happened a minute or so in the past. As a result they often have the exact same responses to their surroundings. They get caught in these loops where they will have the exact same minute or two long conversation over and over for hours. It is as if the choices they make are more influenced by external stimuli than some internal free will.

Free will, meaning that "we" can "do"? Complicated question, theoretically possible at some level, but not a "given" trait of man as we are. A simple example: Try to shut off all thought, silence the mind for a minute, can you do it? Where are these thoughts coming from, TV, internet, a book perhaps something that happened to me as a child ? Surely these thoughts have no affect on my actions, they in no way direct me or influence me, what I do is completely in my control, everything is a conscious decision, nothing is done automatically without my consent. Nah, no free will , no true will

Not if you have a mortgage.

thunderlips11 says

Any highlights that stood out for you in this book?

Yes. Specifically this paper and related discussion on the biology of choice.

Essentially, based on measuring readiness potential - the authors conclude that the conscious awareness of intending to act is delayed by at least 200-300 ms from the onset of cerebral activity towards the act.

It is fascinating, because it opens up the issue of whether intentionality is understood retrospectively, whether it is an illusion of watching oneself act. Attention to intention milliseconds before the act may be the means by which conscious control of actions is even possible.

I cannot think of anything more interesting than studying the human brain.

uomo_senza_nome says

I cannot think of anything more interesting than studying the human brain.

A lot of other people think so too.

Unfortunately, that means we'll eventually have mind-control technology. Won't that be swell?

freak80 says

Unfortunately, that means we'll eventually have mind-control technology.

Better yet, brain-control!

http://www.youtube.com/embed/eH_sKOmkB14

leo707 says

Better yet, brain-control!

That's what I meant.

uomo_senza_nome

You do have free will and can freely choose from a menu of options.

I have even devised a test you can take to prove this to yourself.

No one has yet shown that this test can fail and those who have taken it agree at the end of it that they have free will and can direct their choice.

Care to take my little test?

Regards
DL

Greatest I am says

No one has yet shown that this test can fail and those who have taken it agree at the end of it that they have free will and can direct their choice.

Please elaborate.

uomo_senza_nome says

Greatest I am says

No one has yet shown that this test can fail and those who have taken it agree at the end of it that they have free will and can direct their choice.

Please elaborate.

My pleasure.

To the test. Let me give you the logic trail.

If you do not have something, you cannot give it up.
If you have something, free will included, then it stands to reason that you can give it up.

In your usual exercise of replying to posts, you choose whatever language word or letters that you will write down.

To prove that you have a free will, all you need do is give it up. Give it up to me. Choose to do my will instead of yours. Begin your next reply to me the way I want. The first letter only.

Just do as I asked because you will it or choose to.

Begin your next reply to me with a Y.

Regards
DL

uomo_senza_nome says

Is there such a thing called free will?

Obviously no. Free will in an illusion and a meaningless one at that. Just consider the following thought experiment. There are two disjoint universes that are identical. Every photon, every quark, ever lepton has the exact same state (energy, position, everything) as a corresponding entity in the other universe. Let there be only one difference between these two universes. In one "free will", whatever the fuck that is, operates and in the other it doesn't.

As time goes on, how do these two universe differ? The answer: not at all.

Better yet, image a billion identical disjoint universes in which free will operates and a billion in which it doesn't. Even if you play the quantum mechanics card, any variation seen in the free will universes will also be seen in the non-free-will universes.

The bottom line is that humans are decision making machines, but we are deterministic decision making machines. Regardless of how unpredictable or complex we decision making machines are, we have no less deterministic than a Turing machine like your computer. In fact, our brains meet the definition of a computer and are Turing Equivalent.

Another way to look at it is this. Your body is made entirely of atoms. Every atom does one and only one thing: choicelessly follow the laws of physics. Since your body is composed only of atoms, and those atoms are choiceless, your body including your brain is essentially choiceless. You "choose" things based on the internal state of your brain and external input, both of which are deterministic.

Free will is an illusion and a meaningless one at that.

That said, free will is not necessary for morality, justification of laws to protect rights, and other sentient activities often attributed to free will.

One more thing. It's a dead giveaway that free will is a meaningless term because no one can define it in a way that isn't inherently ambiguous and subjective. Nor can one enumerate the properties of this so-called free will any more than one can enumerate the properties of the so-called soul.

uomo_senza_nome says

rooemoore says

Free choice - yes. Free will - no.

What's the difference?

Choice is the result of decision making even when that decision making is deterministic, as it always is. Free will implies non-deterministic decision making. Such a concept is nonsensical as it violates causality. Free will is a supernatural concept. Freedom is not.

uomo_senza_nome says

rooemoore says

Free choice - yes. Free will - no.

What's the difference?

Walk into an ice cream parlor. There are 32 flavors. Chocolate is your favorite and strawberry makes you want to puke. You are free to choose strawberry but that doesn't mean you will like it.

I can choose to go to church. I cannot choose to believe in God.

uomo_senza_nome says

I cannot think of anything more interesting than studying the human brain.

Boobies

thunderlips11 says

As a psychopath, Ayn Rand saw this as a weakness as most psychopaths do. However, interestingly she wanted to bring down everyone to her subhuman level instead of exploiting that weakness while hiding her 'difference' like most other psychopaths are wont to do.

Damn, that's the best analysis of Ayn Rand I've ever heard in my life. And I've play BioShock.

rooemoore says

I can choose to go to church. I cannot choose to believe in God.

According to republicans, you can choose to be gay. And I know that the only thing keeping me from munching on man ass and loving it is that I explicitly choose to be heterosexual. Although some days, it's a hard choice to make as many anti-gay republicans know.

Dan8267 says

Just consider the following thought experiment.

OK, Dan I like your thought experiment.

Assuming that there is no free will, and all "choices" can be broken down to the physics of how matter interacts.

let's assume a creature exists than can "see" the state of every photon, quark and lepton and had an understanding on how these items interacted. Am I right to assume that this creature could then accurately predict all choices made? Let's also say that this creature could reach in to others, manipulate their subatomic structure, and effect the choices that the creature would make.

What if this creature was to look at itself.

Could the creature predict it's own choices? Would it be free will if the creature then altered it's own "preset" choice?

leo707 says

Dan8267 says

Just consider the following thought experiment.

OK, Dan I like your thought experiment.

Assuming that there is no free will, and all "choices" can be broken down to the physics of how matter interacts.

let's assume a creature exists than can "see" the state of every photon, quark and lepton and had an understanding on how these items interacted. Am I right to assume that this creature could then accurately predict all choices made? Let's also say that this creature could reach in to others, manipulate their subatomic structure, and effect the choices that the creature would make.

What if this creature was to look at itself.

Could the creature predict it's own choices? Would it be free will if the creature then altered it's own "preset" choice?

A lot of assumptions, but my answer is pretty much the same as the one I give to people who ask if I think God exists:

How the fuck am I supposed to know?

rooemoore says

How the fuck am I supposed to know?

Well, that is the thing with free will. It makes for a fun philosophical discussion, but at the end of the day even if we know that free will does not exist we still need to behave as if it did.

leo707 says

Could the creature predict it's own choices?

Two issues. First, predictability and determinism are independent concepts. A system could be
1. Predictable and deterministic.
2. Non-predictable and deterministic.
3. Predictable and non-deterministic.
4. Non-predictable and non-deterministic.

So whether or not the creature could predict its choices does not tell you whether or not the creature's choices are deterministic.

Second issue: recursion. Such a creature could use its predictions as the basis of its decision. Let's use the mother-in-law principle. A mother-in-law always disagrees with her son-in-law no matter what. In your example, the creature is the mother-in-law and the prediction made by the creature is the son-in-law.

The creature has the option of choosing either A or not A. If you prefer, we can say the creature has to choose either A or B but not both. Either case is the same.

Let's say the creature uses the following algorithm to choose.

1. Predict whether I will choose A or B.
2. Actually choose the compliment.

Step 1 will result in infinite recursion as the creature will have to know it is going to choose the compliment no matter what it chooses. As a result, such a creature could not know what choice it will eventually make as it would require an infinite amount of time to evaluate its decision making process. Assuming that one of the two options will be defaulted to at some period of time, the choice will be effectively random based on the various propagation delays while evaluating the decision.

Even if the creature is aware of this problem, any attempts to avoid the infinite recursion while still maintaining the mother-in-law doctrine would be futile. As such, your creature could only predict its own choices if it were willing to accept those choices rather than altering them. The same problem occurs with time travelers.

Also, a set-reset flip-flop that hasn't be initialized exhibits the above behavior.

I have decided that I am going to fully understand this question.

Hopefully, given enough 'will power,' I will succeed.

Dan8267 says

As a result, such a creature could not know what choice it will eventually make as it would require an infinite amount of time to evaluate its decision making process.

Infinite is a interesting word. Some people believe the universe and whatever is beyond it is "infinite". That moves us into the parallel universe discussion. In fact, if one subscribes to the universe being "infinite" they will have a hard time arguing that there are not "infinite" worlds identical to ours. Also, there would be "infinite" worlds that are identical except for 1 thing - say the world where you forgot to pick up the eggs at the supermarket.

And of course there would be the variation where Dan8267 is an insufferable born again Christian who spends his time on a website named Patrick.net trying to convert "lost souls".

I want to get a spaceship and fly to the world where Kate Upton is my girlfriend. It's out there!

marcus says

I have decided that I am going to fully understand this question.

Hopefully, given enough 'will power,' I will succeed.

Rational thought, not willpower, is the key to understanding. You cannot will yourself a cure for cancer, a regrown limb, or understanding of mathematics, physics, or any other subject matter.

rooemoore says

In fact, if one subscribes to the universe being "infinite" they will have a hard time arguing that there are not "infinite" worlds identical to ours

A common misconception advocated even by the likes of Neils Degrasse Tyson. The error lies in the assumption that just because the Cosmos, for lack of a better term, is infinite (for sake of this argument), that the values of variables are uniformly randomly distributed across all possible values.

Clearly, this is not a correct assumption. We could have a cosmos with an infinite number of universes but with the restriction that all universes have a mean temperature less than 1000K at time 1000 Earth-years after birth. Placing constraints on conditions as well as making certain values more probable than others ensures that not all possible states will be represented even in an infinite set.

But wait, if anything has a non-zero chance of occurring in any given universe out of an infinite set of universes, doesn't that mean that the event will occur in an infinite number of universes or at least one? No.

It's like Zeno's Motionless Runner paradox. The answer is quite simply that an infinite sequence of infinitesimal values can add up to a finite value.

In the level 1 multiverse you propose, the probability of some events may be non-zero but infinitesimal thereby having any probably (0.0, 1.0] of occurring in the infinite multiverse. Notice that the interval is open at 0 and closed at 1.

But even if in one such universe there was a genetically identical person called Dan8267 who was a born again Christian, he would not be me. I am my mind, no more or less. And such a counterpart would not have my mind and therefore would not have a brain wired up identically to me. He would be similar to me to some extent, but not me. Then again, everything is similar to anything else to some extent. So that's not much of a statement.

Finally, it's unfortunate that the probability doesn't pan out like you assumed. It could be that a law of physics places a constraint that prevents you from having Kate Upton as a girlfriend in any universe.

Zeno's paradox is cute - how many quarks per hour - in the same way that my 11 year old son said on a camping trip this summer that if the universe was infinite wouldn't the night sky have more stars or just be solid white with stars?

Dan8267 says

But even if in one such universe there was a genetically identical person called Dan8267 who was a born again Christian, he would not be me. I am my mind, no more or less.

This moves us into psychology (stuff like The Ego and the Id). Just because you are not conscious of your parallel ego doesn't mean it is not in fact you.

Bottom line is that if history teaches us anything it teaches us that we know less than we think we know. But then, who knows?

I'm keeping the Kate Upton fantasy though. Everyone has to have faith in something.

Greatest I am says

Begin your next reply to me with a Y.

This is a stupid experiment because your reply will create an inherent bias on my brain state (one way or the other).

The brain state comes first, not the will.

uomo_senza_nome says

Greatest I am says

Begin your next reply to me with a Y.

This is a stupid experiment because your reply will create an inherent bias on my brain state (one way or the other).

The brain state comes first, not the will.

It seems to me that the definition of "will" needs to be agreed upon by the participants in this debate before it goes any further.

Dan8267 says

Another way to look at it is this. Your body is made entirely of atoms. Every atom does one and only one thing: choicelessly follow the laws of physics. Since your body is composed only of atoms, and those atoms are choiceless, your body including your brain is essentially choiceless. You "choose" things based on the internal state of your brain and external input, both of which are deterministic.

Great answer Dan, loved it.

But -- there's one problem. Once one is conscious of the decision being made, the person can alter their decision. Arguably, there's not much time to alter it, but it can certainly be altered. So a choice is not entirely deterministic, right? Meaning, I can change my brain state (also called as mind).

Neuroplasticity is true. Thought alters the brain state in as much the same way as brain state influences thought.

An analogy: brain is the river bed and thought is the stream flowing through it -- the thought is constrained by the river bed, but thought can alter the river bed as well.

Dan8267 says

Boobies

LOL, What's there to study? It's all play ;)

rooemoore says

It seems to me that the definition of "will" needs to be agreed upon by the participants in this debate before it goes any further.

"I'd remind you that there was never a time in the history of biology when a bunch of us sat around the table and said, 'Let's first define what we mean by life.' We just went out there and discovered what it was—a double helix. We leave matters of semantic hygiene to you philosophers." - Dr. Francis Crick

Who cares about semantic hygiene, when we just want an intellectually stimulating discussion? :)

uomo_senza_nome says

Who cares about semantic hygiene, when we just want an intellectually stimulating discussion? :)

Ah yes, the circle jerk. I remember it well from a previous, parallel life!

rooemoore says

if the universe was infinite wouldn't the night sky have more stars or just be solid white with stars?

Only if light traveled instantaneously. It doesn't.

The observable universe is only13.75 plus or minus 0.11 billion light years because that's how long the universe has existed. Well, technically, the light barrier is slightly less than the age of the universe because photons weren't free at the beginning, but not by much.

It is speculated that the actual universe is about 90 billion light years in size. Remember this interactive animation of the scale of the universe I've posted before?

The actual universe can be bigger than the observable universe because space itself can recede from us faster than the speed of light. Space has no mass and the recession is cumulative across vast distances.

I personally don't buy into the level 1 multiverse as our understanding of the universe and the Big Bang Theory is that the universe is not expanding in pre-existing space, but rather the space is being created by the expansion of the universe. Hence, there is not an infinite amount of space.

One of my favorite books, The Little Book of the Big Bang: A Cosmic Primer calculates the number of distinct places and times in the observable universe, the number of atoms 10^78 and the number of photons 10^88, and other interesting facts. It's a small book packed with knowledge and makes for great table-side conversations.

rooemoore says

I'm keeping the Kate Upton fantasy though. Everyone has to have faith in something.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Carl Sagan.

Then again, Carl Sagan's field of study didn't include heavily bodies like massive compact halo objects.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/iwM4fborwJk

Thanks for the book suggestion and, er, the other stuff!

You do have free will, but within the circumstances you find yourself in. Who you are born to, time, the place, family circumstances etc. all seem to be beyond your control.

Someone coming of age in post World War II America had it very different than someone coming of age today. Similarly someone who was born as a black slave in the south had very different circumstances than say Obama's kids.

Then babies born with HIV in impoverished nations have it very different than a normal baby in a rich country.

We do get to exercise our will in every moment, but only under the circumstance the "fates" deal us.

uomo_senza_nome says

Once one is conscious of the decision being made, the person can alter their decision. Arguably, there's not much time to alter it, but it can certainly be altered. So a choice is not entirely deterministic, right?

Pseudo-code since I don’t have Visual Studio installed right now. Recently reinstalled OS for new hard drive.

private static int chosenOption = 0;
private static bool done = false;

public void main (String[] args)
{
    Thread thread = new Thread(() => OverideDecision());
    thread.Start();

    MakeDecision();

    while (!done)
        Thread.Sleep(100);

    Console.Writeln(chosenOption);
}

private void MakeDecision ()
{
    … // Some deterministic arrival of someNonZeroValue
    chosenOption = someNonZeroValue;
}

private void OverrideDecision ()
{
    while (chosenOption == 0)
        Thread.Sleep(100);

    chosenOption++;

    done = true;
}

So, is the output of the above program deterministic or not? I say yes.

uomo_senza_nome says

An analogy: brain is the river bed and thought is the stream flowing through it -- the thought is constrained by the river bed, but thought can alter the river bed as well.

The river is dynamic and deterministic. The opposite of dynamic is static, not deterministic.

A more practical example would be self-modifying code. Such code is non-reentrant, but the process is still deterministic. Now, computer science may use the term "non-deterministic" to mean that the programmer can't be sure what the value will be, but that's a different meaning than "the value is not determined by initial conditions". It's a subtle, but important difference. When computer science teachers talk about non-deterministic algorithms, they mean ones that aren't predictable and can have volatile results.

Self-modifying code is also something determined by initial conditions which is why the "random" numbers you get are always the same if you use the same algorithm and seed value. It's why programs like MineCraft can generate random worlds, but always the same one for the same seed value. Computers don't do true randomness. As the universe itself if basically a computer, it doesn't either. Copenhagen Interpretation not withstanding.

A dynamic system can be deterministic. In fact, I believe any real, physical system is as I don't see any way the laws of physics could allow for non-determinism, and that's why computers will never be able to generate truly random numbers but rather only crafty approximations. In fact, making a good imitation of random numbers is an exceptionally hard problem and has extremely important consequences in cryptography. That's why some random number generations are referred to as "cryptography quality".

In any case, even a chaotic dynamic system like weather is deterministic. It's just not predictable except to a small extent. No one argues that the weather has free will just because its enormously complex with many feedback systems and pivot points.

lostand confused says

You do have free will, but within the circumstances you find yourself in.

You are confusing the concepts of free will and freedom and thus missing the point of this conversation. The discussion is about whether or not the very concept of free will is meaningful, and if so does free will exist or is it an illusion.

I have been advocating the position that free will is a meaningless illusion brought about as a side-effect of consciousness and emotional needs of intelligent beings.

So far, the only alternative proposed is that the dynamic nature of feedback systems in decision making might be considered free will, however, I disagree with that proposition.