"Free will" cannot interrupt the determinist chain. — Edmund

I don't believe their is a determinist causal chain.

The future doesn't exist so you can't know what will happen next only speculate.

Determinism seems to require psychic powers to know all Outcomes.

Sam Harris argues that in the chain of causation the buck does not stop and our "free will" cannot interrupt the determinist chain. There is no free will at any particular point. What do people think?

If every state is determined by its anterior state, It seems to me that a determinist “chain of causation” could not exist since there is no anterior state to determine the initial state in the chain. Either the chain is infinite or there was a first cause.

To avoid this and other troubling notions, such as discrete states of the universe, we can say that the “anterior state” is merely a retroactive description of the one state, namely, the universe, and as such has no deterministic powers upon any other state.

Either the chain is infinite or there was a first cause. — NOS4A2

In mathematics an infinite regression can have a "first cause".

${{F}_{n}}(z)={{f}_{1}}\circ {{f}_{2}}\circ \cdots \circ {{f}_{n}}(z)$, $n\to \infty$

$z$ is a "first cause". For any value of n one starts with z and employs backward recursion to mimic nature and arrive at a current condition.

...that is so going to fuck up so much bad philosophy...

Beautiful.

One of me all-time favorite ideas is The Principle of Sufficient Reason, abbreviated as the PSR. It asserts ...

1. If x exists, there's a suffucient explanation why x exists.

2. If e is an event, there's a sufficient explanation for why e occurs.

3. If p is true, there's a sufficient explanation for why p is true.

Very cool.

We can only be said to have "free will" in that we make choices. Our making of choices isn't really free though.

Once a compatibilist, I now agree with Sam - a puppet on strings is not free.

Sam Harris argues that in the chain of causation the buck does not stop and our "free will" cannot interrupt the determinist chain. — Edmund

That assumes a determinist chain.

That assumes a determinist chain. — Olivier5

What if one were to assume indeterminism. What then?

What if one were to assume indeterminism. What then? — punos

Then causation is not a chain, and we are not shackled by it.

In mathematics an infinite regression can have a "first cause". — jgill

One could argue that a theory of everything can explain everything and why everything is. But the question will always be what lies beyond that. At that point it will be impossible and of no use to prove. Why bother. The abyss if you will.

I've read about spacetime being a dimension, and that humans experience time as change because brains work in the direction of entropy. But that's above my pay grade.

What if one were to assume indeterminism. What then? — punos


Then causation is not a chain, and we are not shackled by it. — Olivier5

Are you saying that as long as there is no chain of causation we have free-will?

I love these threads. It is argued that Godlike omniscience can be "replicated" by knowing the state and position of every atomic particle on Earth. So, that bridge that is weak will collapse approximately at 1800 hours because due to the observed affect of its integrity from X cars that are scheduled to pass and knowing there is a large truck that is scheduled to pass over it (due to their being no current obstructions in route) that event can - in theory - be pinpointed precisely to the microsecond. Or that due to full analysis of someone's state of mind and knowing of an interaction or situation that will lead them to be at the bridge with a sledgehammer, they will be in a state of anger and destroy the bridge with it... Something like that. The ultimate or holy grail of AI, perhaps. It may not enslave humanity, but someone using it surely could. It only exists in theoretical discussion of course... or so we're told. :D

Are you saying that as long as there is no chain of causation we have free-will? — punos

The argument of Harris (Spinoza, really) does not work in an indeterministic world, leaving open the possibility that we may have some agency.

The argument of Harris (Spinoza, really) does not work in an indeterministic world, leaving open the possibility that we may have some agency. — Olivier5

How would that agency be enacted or actualized indeterministically? Can you provide some kind of example as to how this might occur?

That's the 100 million dollar question. I would think along some lines close to our intuition of it: we ponder things and take decisions, chosing among limited options of course. Yes we do so in limited time and based on imperfect information but we can manage our time and information basis better; yes we are a product of our culture but we can analyze that and reform our education. So the buck stops at us.

Sam Harris argues that in the chain of causation the buck does not stop and our "free will" cannot interrupt the determinist chain. — Edmund

What determinist chain?

We are having a "discussion" about free will. A "discussion" is something which can only exist in the context of free will. So anyone who proposes there is no free will is not proposing anything, since there is no free will and no one to propose.

In the chapter "An Agentless Semantics of Action" (Oneself As Another) Ricouer differentiates between what happens and why it happens, and argues for the causal efficacy of motivations. From a strictly material-cognitivist perspective, organisms evolve an internal feature of hysteresis, which is a processing delay between an input signal and any resultant output. This occurs at the most primitive level, in the formation of a cell membrane for example; and at the more sophisticated level of encephalization, and the evolution and elongation of neuronal dendrites. The fact that a complex cognitive system can amass knowledge means that a system that "knows" can and will act differently from an otherwise identical system that does not know. So there is no determinist chain in the context of a thinking thing, at least, to the extent that thing can be motivated by knowledge or reason. Which coincides with the traditional belief that thinking beings are free when they act based upon reason, but are not free when they act out of ignorance.

we ponder things and take decisions, chosing among limited options of course. — Olivier5

1.3 billion dollars worth of questions:
Is pondering and thinking not something that goes on in the brain?
If so, isn't the brain a physical system based on electro-chemical signaling?
If so, can an electro-chemical processes happen in any other way than how the laws of physics dictate?
If so, isn't every decision a result of these physical processes?

Is free-will something that is inherent in the laws of physics or does it come from outside those laws?
Does free-will violate the normal functioning of these laws?

Do elementary particles have free-will?
Do atoms have free-will?
Do molecules have free-will?
Do cells have free-will?
Do organs have free-will?
Do individuals have free-will?
At which point does free-will make its appearance?

Is pondering and thinking not something that goes on in the brain? — punos

Given that "the brain" is also a thought, this would get us stuck in a circle.

Is free-will something that is inherent in the laws of physics or does it come from outside those laws?
Does free-will violate the normal functioning of these laws? — punos

The laws of physics are a collection of human observations. But since freedom is not even in principle observable, it seems weird to expect it to show up.

As a though experiment, what would a world in which free will "violates the normal functioning" of the laws of physics look like? How would we detect such a violation?

As a though experiment, what would a world in which free will "violates the normal functioning" of the laws of physics look like? How would we detect such a violation? — Echarmion

Given that the normal functioning of the laws of physics encompasses both entropy and negentropy, the possibilities are pretty much endless already.....

Is pondering and thinking not something that goes on in the brain? — punos

You wouldn't be able to see any of it if you dissected a brain.

Given that "the brain" is also a thought, this would get us stuck in a circle. — Echarmion

Everything else is also a thought, and that doesn't seem to make much of a difference. Why is the thinking of "the brain" specifically a problem?

The laws of physics are a collection of human observations. — Echarmion

Everything we know comes from human observation; how does this make a significant difference? Physical laws are more dependable than any other kind of law. We know this because we observe it, and we survive on a daily basis because we know it. Ever notice that gravity works even if you're no observing or paying attention. It is the difference between the objective and the subjective.

But since freedom is not even in principle observable, it seems weird to expect it to show up. — Echarmion

I agree with this, i've never seen this freedom of will that is so talked about. If it is not observable then how do you know you have it? If it is observable then why cant it be pointed out? Wouldn't that be even weirder still?

As a though experiment, what would a world in which free will "violates the normal functioning" of the laws of physics look like? How would we detect such a violation? — Echarmion

It depending on where the violation occurs, which is why i asked about the atoms, molecules, cells, etc..
Assuming then that the violation happens somewhere at the atomic, or subatomic scale:

Example: A negatively charged particle is floating stationary in space. Two other charged particles (positive and negative) are positioned on either side of the first particle. Which of the two side particles will the middle particle move towards? It has two options; it can go towards the positively charged particle since the laws of electro-magnetism dictate that move. The other option is for this particle to use its God given free-will to move towards the negatively charged particle in violation of the law (and against every scientists expectations).

The result of this would be that things would cease to work properly such as anything dealing with electricity. Computers that depend on these laws to be obeyed for reliable functionality would be useless. Light switches would turn on or off according to their own free-will. The logical structure of the universe would begin to collapse immediately or would have never formed anything complex in the first place. Nothing would be consistent, or reliable.

You wouldn't be able to see any of it if you dissected a brain. — Olivier5

You wouldn't be able to see a picture or video stored in your computer's memory or HD if you opened it up and looked inside. Can you hear music on a vinyl record by just looking at it? The correct access method needs to be utilized.

Anyway scientist have already been able to detect thoughts, and even record them, and know what they are all without any brain dissections, below is just one example of this:

Image Reconstruction From Human Brain Waves in Real-Time

Another one:

Everything else is also a thought, and that doesn't seem to make much of a difference. Why is the thinking of "the brain" specifically a problem? — punos

Because, as I pointed out, it's only there that we circle our observations back to their point of origin. What does it mean to say that thoughts occur "in the brain" when the brain is also a thought?

Everything we know comes from human observation — punos

This is not true. We know some things that do not depend on observations. For example, we know the scientific method, but the scientific method does not come from observation.

If it is not observable then how do you know you have it? — punos

I know I have it because I use it all the time. I have direct experience of making decisions.

The other option is for this particle to use its God given free-will to move towards the negatively charged particle in violation of the law (and against every scientists expectations). — punos

But since the laws of physics are just the shortest description that accounts for all observations, if this were to happen then the laws would simply be different. That's why I pointed out earlier that the laws of physics are simply a description of observations. Nothing we observe can ever violate the laws of physics, it's a logical impossibility.

The result of this would be that things would cease to work properly such as anything dealing with electricity. — punos

But in this world, things would always already have worked that way.

This is a common framing of free will, as some sudden and dramatic change in how things work, an act of magic. But if free will is present all the time, it'd already be accounted for in all the measurements.

Nothing would be consistent, or reliable. — punos

This is another common misconception: that free will is equivalent to random noise. But that's not actually what we experience when we make decisions.

Because, as I pointed out, it's only there that we circle our observations back to their point of origin. What does it mean to say that thoughts occur "in the brain" when the brain is also a thought? — Echarmion

Our thoughts about the brain are thoughts, but the brain is an objective object in spacetime. You may be conflating two different concepts "brain" and "mind". One is objective and the other is subjective.
Do you believe in objective reality?

This is not true. We know some things that do not depend on observations. For example, we know the scientific method, but the scientific method does not come from observation. — Echarmion

I don't know what you mean. What is your definition of observation? How do you know there is a thing called "the scientific method"? Were you born knowing that, not having to learn it?

If it is not observable then how do you know you have it? — punos


I know I have it because I use it all the time. I have direct experience of making decisions. — Echarmion

I don't think we have the same definition for "observe". Here it is from Google:
observe = notice or perceive (something) and register it as being significant.

But since the laws of physics are just the shortest description that accounts for all observations, if this were to happen then the laws would simply be different. That's why I pointed out earlier that the laws of physics are simply a description of observations. Nothing we observe can ever violate the laws of physics, it's a logical impossibility. — Echarmion

That's right.. the laws would be different, and the difference would be that there would be no law. What would be the point of any law if you could just do what you want (anarchy)? We always "observe" that they do the same thing every single time, no exception. Observation does not violate anything, the violation would happen in the free act of will (free-will). Like you said "observations" must obey logic (law), and thus observations are valid. If you reject observation then what are you left with? Rejecting observation is the most anti-scientific method thing i've ever heard.

How do you acquire your premises for your logical arguments without observation?

Our thoughts about the brain are thoughts, but the brain is an objective object in spacetime. You may be conflating two different concepts "brain" and "mind". One is objective and the other is subjective.
Do you believe in objective reality? — punos

How do you know the brain is part of objective reality? I do believe there is one, but the physical world is a model of this objective reality created by human minds.

I don't know what you mean. What is your definition of observation? — punos

Observation is processing an outside stimulus, where "outside" means not mentally labeled as part of our selves.

How do you know there is a thing called "the scientific method"? Were you born knowing that, not having to learn it? — punos

It's based on a logical assessment of epistemological principles. I was born knowing logic, or at least with the requisite mental machinery to process it.

That's right.. the laws would be different, and the difference would be that there would be no law. — punos

The anthropic principle makes this impossible though.

We always "observe" that they do the same thing every single time, no exception. — punos

It's the other way around. We build our laws to account for the observations.

Observation does not violate anything, the violation would happen in the free act of will (free-will) — punos

I don't understand this sentence.

Like you said "observations" must obey logic (law), and thus observations are valid. — punos

I said no such thing, and the term "valid" as applied here makes no sense to me.

If you reject observation then what are you left with? Rejecting observation is the most anti-scientific method thing i've ever heard. — punos

I'm not sure how you arrived at this conclusion, but let me clarify that I don't reject observation. Observation is central for acquiring knowledge about the outside world.

How do you acquire your premises for your logical arguments without observation? — punos

Some things can be established without observation. For example, there is something that thinks, and some thoughts have the attribute of being "mine".

I have never in my life even heard of anyone that has ever given a logical, and reasonable account of how free-will actually works. All i ever hear is basically that free-will is real because i know "because i decided i know". If reasons are given as to how they know, the reasons are always subjective in nature. My questions are never answered in any appropriate way, although it will always be claimed to be appropriate just because.

I have a suspicion that believe in God and belief in free-will are somehow related. What i mean is that those that believe in God also believe in free-will, and those that do not believe in God do not believe in free-will.

Is there a way to make a survey about this question?
Do you believe in God?
Do you believe in free-will?

How do you know the brain is part of objective reality? I do believe there is one, but the physical world is a model of this objective reality created by human minds. — Echarmion

I remember in high school when my science teacher brought in an actual human brain for the class to observe, touch and examine. There are entire fields of study that are dedicated to the study of the brain. I've taken drugs that objectively affect how my brain works temporarily that gives me a subjective experience. I've noticed how my supposed free-will changes according to the drug active in my brain. All of these things and more signal to me that this thing is objective. Above all there is consensus on the matter.

Observation is processing an outside stimulus, where "outside" means not mentally labeled as part of our selves. — Echarmion

How do you tell the difference between outside stimulus, and what is labeled as part of yourself?

It's based on a logical assessment of epistemological principles. I was born knowing logic, or at least with the requisite mental machinery to process it. — Echarmion

What are these epistemological principles that you are referring to?
Yes everyone is born with the machinery to process logic, but we are not born knowing how to use it. If we did then the world wouldn't be the way it is. Thinking that we know when we don't know is what is called the Dunning-Kruger effect... be careful with that.

That's right.. the laws would be different, and the difference would be that there would be no law. — punos

The anthropic principle makes this impossible though. — Echarmion

It's not that it's impossible, its that it is observationally evident without a doubt.

It's the other way around. We build our laws to account for the observations. — Echarmion

And the laws we build from our observations tell us that there are no exceptions to the rules, like gravity, or the conservation of energy, etc.. If we accept these laws that we observe and work consistently and reliably then we should be able to reliably conclude that we have no free-will not that we have it. If you say that we have it then which observed law of physics allows it?

Some things can be established without observation. For example, there is something that thinks, and some thoughts have the attribute of being "mine". — Echarmion

Don't you perceive and observe your own thoughts? When you have a thought how do you know you had it if you didn't observe yourself having the thought. I observe my thoughts, my emotions, my dreams, my opinions, etc.. anything i know has been observed at some point or i would not know it.

Can you name just one thing that you know without having observed it at some point in your life?