On the existence of free will.

[Grames]

Tornadoes and hurricanes are examples of emergent structures that have massive effects that are entirely absent from a system without such a structure. Hurricanes and tornadoes do not simply move around air and water, they can manipulate houses and cars. And yet no laws of physics are broken.

I agree that a thought is not a particular molecule, but neither is a tornado a particular molecule. A structure made of multiple more fundamental parts is capable of exhibiting novel behavior which is not a violation of physics. It precisely because emergent structures are material things that they can act as causal agents having material effects.

Thought and consciousness are not merely "real", they are fully real. If you doubt this then you are not nearly the hard-headed materialist you make yourself out to be, but a secret believer in "woo". This contradiction is a manifestation of the mind-body dichotomy wherein the mind is held not fully real simply because it is not as brutally real as a rock.

edit: deleted requote

Edited May 20, 2009 by Grames

[nanite1018]

A tornado and hurricane are deterministic precisely because they arise solely from deterministic processes. Just because I cannot predict a tornado from simply looking at quantum mechanics, does not mean that it does not follow directly from it and is somehow not deterministic. Any system, no matter how complex, is bound by physical law and is thus deterministic. That does not mean it is possible to predict its behavior (Heisenberg ensures that well enough), but it does mean that it obeys laws of physics and only laws of physics. Tornadoes do push things around, hurling cars and so forth. But tornadoes only do that because of the interactions at the level of air molecules interacting with each other and the molecules that make up the car. Similarly, consciousness can push things around, but only because neurons and whatever else creates it are interacting.

A tornado only exists when I step up a level and think on the plane of concepts and directly perceivable entities. Similarly, free will and consciousness only exists when I step up a level and think on the plane of concepts and directly perceivable entities and characteristics. The one level does not invalidate the other level as a legitimate means of understanding the world. What is missing, so far as I can tell, from Objectivism is a direct statement of this fact. Free will exists only on the level of consciousness, go deeper, to the level of neurons and proteins and particles, and it disappears. Just as "table" isn't invalidated by the fact tables are made of particles, "free will" isn't invalidated by the fact that consciousness comes from interactions of certain types of physical systems. Free will gives insight into consciousness, but gives no information at all about the universe. It is an illusion in the same sense tornadoes and tables are illusions. In reality, those things are not the core of reality (there is no "tornado particle", but simply an emergent phenomenon), but manifestations of its interactions with the brain. Table is a valid concept only because it describes what I see and interact with, but it is not a primary, it isn't the core of reality, that is particles and wave functions and physical law. Saying that a rainbow is caused by the properties of the atmosphere and water vapor along with the refraction of light does not mean that rainbow's aren't beautiful or a meaningful concept, just that they aren't basic to the nature of existence and so are an "illusion" in my use of the term.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Free will gives insight into consciousness, but gives no information at all about the universe. It is an illusion in the same sense tornadoes and tables are illusions. In reality, those things are not the core of reality (there is no "tornado particle", but simply an emergent phenomenon), but manifestations of its interactions with the brain. Table is a valid concept only because it describes what I see and interact with, but it is not a primary, it isn't the core of reality, that is particles and wave functions and physical law. Saying that a rainbow is caused by the properties of the atmosphere and water vapor along with the refraction of light does not mean that rainbow's aren't beautiful or a meaningful concept, just that they aren't basic to the nature of existence and so are an "illusion" in my use of the term.

Then you are deluding yourself.

Tables and chairs and trees and animals and man are primaries in the philosophical sense of the word -- it is what you directly observe about reality. Reality is comprised of entities, and we are aware of those entities via observation. We observe real reality -- it is given by the senses and via introspection.

To put it another way, you are one entity -- you are not a collection of cells nor a collection of sub-atomic particles -- you are the entity under consideration when we discuss the nature of man; and it is the nature of man to be self-directed by means of his free will to think or not to think.

I'm actually against the idea of emergent properties because an entity is what it is -- the whole thing; that is what we mean by the term "entity." It is the thing under consideration.

So, stop deluding yourself that you don't have free will and that it is impossible. Use your free will to re-integrate reality starting with the self-evident entities that you do observe; such as yourself as you look in a mirror and introspect.

[nanite1018]

Then you are deluding yourself.

Tables and chairs and trees and animals and man are primaries in the philosophical sense of the word -- it is what you directly observe about reality. Reality is comprised of entities, and we are aware of those entities via observation. We observe real reality -- it is given by the senses and via introspection.

To put it another way, you are one entity -- you are not a collection of cells nor a collection of sub-atomic particles -- you are the entity under consideration when we discuss the nature of man; and it is the nature of man to be self-directed by means of his free will to think or not to think.

I'm actually against the idea of emergent properties because an entity is what it is -- the whole thing; that is what we mean by the term "entity." It is the thing under consideration.

So, stop deluding yourself that you don't have free will and that it is impossible. Use your free will to re-integrate reality starting with the self-evident entities that you do observe; such as yourself as you look in a mirror and introspect.

You seem to be against reductionism (which can include emergence), which is the basic tenet of all scientific knowledge. I observe reality, entities, like a table, tornado, and myself. I think and try to understand how they work. I eventually get to laws of physics and such ideas as atoms and quarks and perhaps even strings or loops of space-time. I understand that tables, tornadoes, and myself are all simply collections of those more "fundamental" (in a scientific sense) entities. A man is a man, but he is also a collection of cells, and a certain pattern of interactions among subatomic particles, much as a table is a table as well as an object of wood, screws, nails, and glue, and is also a collection of cells, and is also a collection of subatomic particles. I can look at every object in the universe at all of the scales of understanding and experience, and some properties can only be seen at certain scales. Free will and thought only arise when I consider the perception by the mind of the actions that are occurring in the brain, just as a tornado only arises when I consider the perception by the mind of the actions of molecules of air under certain conditions.

My experience and perception of volition, of the self-generated act to choose between focusing and not focusing, is created by the fact that my mind arises from the interactions of particles. To try and track back my consciousness prior to that act of volition is impossible when thinking on the level of consciousness, because that is where it begins. All that comes before is something which looses the quality of consciousness, namely the interactions of neurons and neurotransmitters in my brain. A tornado doesn't just create itself out of nowhere, but is created by the actions of air molecules in certain conditions. It is impossible to look at a tornado on the level of perception and say "where'd it come from?", but to go deeper into what created it requires me to move outside of the realm of tornadoes and into fluid dynamics and such things. Consciousness begins at the primary choice of Objectivism about focusing, just as a tornado begins when it is created. We are conscious conceptual entities, and on that level of experience we have volition. Volition exists, it is real, but it must remain in its proper context: the human mind.

Might I suggest that you reintegrate reality in your own mind to take into account the extent of man's knowledge about the workings of the physical universe, of which you are a part? You seem to take what you think to be true (that the mind is different than the body or that living things have something special about them that lets them violate physical law) to take primacy over what evidence actually suggests is true about the universe.

Edited May 20, 2009 by nanite1018

[Eiuol]

To me, it seems that Nanite is searching for a scientific answer of how "free will" came about and doesn't quite see how human will can be completely free. I recognize -that- I have a free will, but I have no idea -why- there is free will. Without knowing why, it's hard for me to fully understand the nature of what free will -is-. Since humans are biological organisms, there definitely is a certain way it came about. Nanite's problem (and mine in a similar yet different way) seems to be that he has a hard time finding where determinism "ends" and where free will can actually begin to work. I'm not sure if anyone can really answer this question, except people working on the cutting-edge AI or computer research.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I'm not sure if anyone can really answer this question, except people working on the cutting-edge AI or computer research.

How we were able to have free will is a scientific question, not a philosophic question. Yes, there is something specific about us that makes it possible for us to be conscious and to be able to direct ourselves; but on the philosophic level, an entity is what it is (the law of identity) and does what it does due to the fact that it is what it is (the law of causality). So, the fact that we do not yet know how the parts go together to make a man be aware, self-aware, and self-directing does not invalidate the fact that we do have those capabilities. It's just an unresolved scientific issue. At this point, due to observations of brain damaged individuals and frontal lobotomies that used to be done to schizophrenics, it is pretty clear that the frontal lobes or the pre-frontal lobes have a lot to do with those capabilities. But we do not have to have all of the answers in order to affirm that we do have free will. Are their limits? Sure, we can't turn ourselves into basketballs by an act of free will; that is we are not omnipotent due to having free will. But we also don't need to be omniscient in order to observe that we do make choices and that there is something about man that makes that possible.

[Clawg]

To argue you need free will. So you can never argue against having a free will.

You can't argue "But in reality we consist of atoms etc." because that puts you outside of reality.

You can look at *other* entities and wonder about their ability of having free will. A stone probably doesn't have free will while another person does (because that person shares a similar faculty of reason).

[crizon]

That is not the problem, I think.

Free will is either impossible or very very hard to prove or disprove. Similar (but not equal) to god.

I think the first step in the argumentation, to accept free will as true because it can be observed by introspection is an assumption with no basis.

The core of the concept of free will is, that one could made a different action in an exact same situation. It is obvious that one can not device a test to recreate the _exact_ same conditions ever. But even if let's say, we could create a second universe and observe that a test person makes different choices when faced with the exact same situation, we don't know if that is just the result of fundamental randomness.

We don't observe free will via introspection. What we observe is, that our mind is constantly faced with problems that require evaluation (thinking). During this thinking process we don't have a solution yet and often state that we have several options from which to chose from. That is correct in a sense, because at that moment we do not know what we will do yet. Once we have found a solution (right or wrong doesn't matter), we have no possibility to ever find out if we could in fact have picked a different option.

The illusion of free will arises because we are such an incredible complex organism that we can't predict ourself. That is when we start to speak about several options during a thought process.

The second important argument is, that one can not have truth without free will or in other words: A human can not function without free will. I really don't see the connection there. Even a computer has some sense of truth if he can determine that 1=1 is true and 100=90 is false. Sure, it is not conscious, but it still can make statements about truth according to his information... so why do I need to be able to make a different choice in the exact same situation in order to function as a human or to have knowledge / recognize something as true, when even a much simple machine can have some form of truth? I don't see anything in human behavior that requires free will.

[Grames]

A tornado and hurricane are deterministic precisely because they arise solely from deterministic processes. Just because I cannot predict a tornado from simply looking at quantum mechanics, does not mean that it does not follow directly from it and is somehow not deterministic. Any system, no matter how complex, is bound by physical law and is thus deterministic. That does not mean it is possible to predict its behavior (Heisenberg ensures that well enough), but it does mean that it obeys laws of physics and only laws of physics. Tornadoes do push things around, hurling cars and so forth. But tornadoes only do that because of the interactions at the level of air molecules interacting with each other and the molecules that make up the car. Similarly, consciousness can push things around, but only because neurons and whatever else creates it are interacting.

A tornado only exists when I step up a level and think on the plane of concepts and directly perceivable entities. Similarly, free will and consciousness only exists when I step up a level and think on the plane of concepts and directly perceivable entities and characteristics. The one level does not invalidate the other level as a legitimate means of understanding the world. What is missing, so far as I can tell, from Objectivism is a direct statement of this fact. Free will exists only on the level of consciousness, go deeper, to the level of neurons and proteins and particles, and it disappears. Just as "table" isn't invalidated by the fact tables are made of particles, "free will" isn't invalidated by the fact that consciousness comes from interactions of certain types of physical systems. Free will gives insight into consciousness, but gives no information at all about the universe. It is an illusion in the same sense tornadoes and tables are illusions. In reality, those things are not the core of reality (there is no "tornado particle", but simply an emergent phenomenon), but manifestations of its interactions with the brain. Table is a valid concept only because it describes what I see and interact with, but it is not a primary, it isn't the core of reality, that is particles and wave functions and physical law. Saying that a rainbow is caused by the properties of the atmosphere and water vapor along with the refraction of light does not mean that rainbow's aren't beautiful or a meaningful concept, just that they aren't basic to the nature of existence and so are an "illusion" in my use of the term.

You equate obeying the laws of physics with being deterministic, yet subtract the possibly of prediction. Your concept of determinism is indistinguishable from bare causality, which it uselessly duplicates. Your insistence that consciousness is determinist is not distinguishable from the Objectivist identification of consciousness as causal.

Your second paragraph is premised on the notion of metaphysical hierarchy. The idea that tables and tornadoes are in any sense illusions, or that reality has a "core" which is somehow more real than other aspects of existence, are logical results of a metaphysical hierarchy. Objectivism rejects metaphysical hierarchy. Everything that exists exists completely and in the same Universe, there are not different levels of reality. For example, the law of identity applies equally to all entities directly regardless of the complexity of their structure. When one refers to the identity of an object the referent is the whole object, that is not merely a shorthand way to refer to the identities of the parts of an object.

The reason you need to think in terms of a metaphysical hierarchy is because you think there is only one kind of thing that exists, the matter described by physics. That idea is called monism. Hierarchy then is way to solve the problem of accounting for all of the other things that exist, by construing them as merely collections of matter at varying levels of organization. Monism commits the distributive fallacy of composition on a giant scale by denying the reality of properties of wholes throughout the universe in favor of affirming only the reality of the One True Substance. For example, calling tornadoes and tables illusions is denying their reality. Monism is false because many things exist, such as tornadoes and tables, which exhibit properties in addition to but not contradicting the properties of their parts.

Alternatives to monism are dualism and nihilism. Dualism is the idea that two things exist: reality and heaven, or matter and forms, or noumenal and phenomenal. Nihilism is the idea that nothing exists. Objectivism accepts that many things exist and no part or aspect of existence is to be denied.

Hierarchy applies to epistemology because there is a certain order in which concepts relate to each other and ultimately back to reality. The laws of physics are not even near the root of the epistemological hierarchy of knowledge, but are complex derivative scientific findings subject to revision as the context of scientific knowledge expands.

[nanite1018]

Thomas M. Movias: My issue with the traditional conception of free will is that the idea we could do something else given the exact same arrangement of matter, our beliefs, ideas, the world around us, etc., requires that the laws of physics are somehow broken (since they are deterministic). I have explained, as crizon has now as well, that my experience of free will does not mean it is actually real. Just because I think I could really have made a different choice given exactly the same conditions doesn't mean I actually could, just that my mind cannot predict its own behavior in advance. Your statement that introspection is a valid means of gaining information is correct when you are only dealing with the elements of consciousness, thoughts, ideas, beliefs, emotion, decisions, etc. But when you then go on to say that the originating decision, the beginning of consciousness, is undetermined, is self-generated and we have the ability to actually choose differently given precisely the same conditions in that area, you must remember you are only analyzing it at the level of consciousness and the mind. On the level of physical objects, on the level of neurons and particles, such a "choice" cannot exist, because the laws of physics and thus the behavior of all physical systems are deterministic (they can only happen one way given the state of things).

Actually, you are right, interestingly enough. Free will is an axiom of philosophy, in the definition of philosophy used by Objectivism- that if a question can be assessed without any special knowledge by any person with the capacity of thought then it is a philosophical question not a scientific one. Free will, the experience of having the ability to choose between different options, is something we all experience. What I am saying is that the scientific question of how that comes about is simply that we cannot possibly predict the future actions of our minds because we cannot even in theory produce a perfect replica of them to run a simulation with (thanks to quantum mechanics), and the fact that our consciousness is an emergent property of the interactions of the particles that make up our minds. Consciousness begins where Objectivism says it does, and free will really does exist on the level of consciousness, thought, and mind. How it got there is, as you said, a scientific question, and one I have attempted to answer a number of times in a way that complies both with science and Objectivism.

[nanite1018]

I have decided I will withdraw from this discussion and reassess my position, gain new knowledge on the position of Objectivism, and then come back and present my position. I just went and bought Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (as well as every other nonfiction book by Rand, my only Objectivist/Rand readings to date are Atlas Shrugg and OPAR). I've also purchased a book on free will/determinism by another philosopher (Daniel Dennett) to see what he has to say about reconciling them. Thank you everyone for bearing with me this far, and I will get back to this discussion after I finish my reading on the subject.

[Grames]

I'm actually against the idea of emergent properties because an entity is what it is -- the whole thing; that is what we mean by the term "entity." It is the thing under consideration.

Consider the proprties of a living entity such as a dog. It has mass, and the particles which comprise it have mass. Science has induced a principle of conservation of mass which applies to a dog in the following way: the mass of a dog is the sum of the mass of all of the particles which comprise the dog. A dog is also alive, but none of the particles which comprise it are alive.

The properties of an entity can classified as those derived in a simple way from the parts, such as mass, and those that are not, such as life. Those properties are emergent that are not found in the parts.

Emergence is a necessary concept to explain why the distributive fallacies are fallacies. Emergent properties are the difference between a whole and the sum of its parts.

Edited May 21, 2009 by Grames

[DavidOdden]

The properties of an entity can classified as those derived in a simple way from the parts, such as mass, and those that are not, such as life. Those properties are emergent that are not found in the parts.

For example, the properties of table salt are "emergent"? Aren't the properties of a hydrogen atom "emergent"?

[Grames]

For example, the properties of table salt are "emergent"? Aren't the properties of a hydrogen atom "emergent"?

Yes, some of them. Where does the saltiness come from? You won't find it the Na atom, or the Cl atom. The Pauli exclusion principle has nothing to say about a single free electron, but governs the behavior of an electron in an atom.

[Grames]

On The Physical Meaning of Volition by Ronald E. Merrill in the defunct journal Objectivity offers an argument based on Gödel's Theorem and Gödel's proof that physics is not complete and that volition would necessarily be self-referential in character. This is good.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

On The Physical Meaning of Volition by Ronald E. Merrill in the defunct journal Objectivity offers an argument based on Gödel's Theorem and Gödel's proof that physics is not complete and that volition would necessarily be self-referential in character. This is good.

The whole thing is rationalistic and unnecessary. Introspection is valid and free will does not have to be validated using the laws of physics. An entity is what it is, and a human being has the power of volition. Introspection is not "just a feeling" it is a legitimate observation of how one's mind works. The apparent contradiction comes in under the premise that all things are deterministic, which is false due to the fact that man does have free will -- that he is aware of his own consciousness and has the power to direct it. It's not determinism versus indeterminism, it's determinism versus a rational presentation of causality, that an entity is what it is and does what it does because it is what it is. Man is man, and he has the capability of being self-directed.

Besides that, physics is not the most fundamental science, philosophy is; and direct observation overrides theory (as you yourself mentioned a bit back). So there is no need to give a whole long essay on some incompleteness theory to "account" for volition. We have volition. How our parts fit together in such a way as to give us that ability is unknown at this time. But the direct observation that we do make choices overrides the supposed necessity to to integrate it with physics of particles and chunks of matter. In other words, there is no need to deduce that volition is possible -- it exists and is observed directly.

[Plasmatic]

As far as I can tell Godel with his mathematical "liars paradox" only proved that one can make an equation say "square-circle",and then all those who embrace contradiction say "see I told you reality was dualistic, the big fancy mathematician said so.". Math requires context/referents as well.

Edited June 2, 2009 by Plasmatic

[Grames]

The whole thing is rationalistic and unnecessary. Introspection is valid and free will does not have to be validated using the laws of physics.

You misconstrue the entire point of the piece which is to integrate knowledge into a consistent whole. Given volition, and given a set of "laws of physics" is there a contradiction or can the two be reconciled somehow? The conclusion is that the two are reconciled.

[Grames]

As far as I can tell Godel with his mathematical "liars paradox" only proved that one can make an equation say "square-circle",and then all those who embrace contradiction say "see I told you reality was dualistic, the big fancy mathematician said so.". Math requires context/referents as well.

No.

Gödel showed that provability is a weaker notion than truth, no matter what axiom system is involved ...

Which is highly agreeable with Objectivism's prove/validate distinction, or in other words that existence has primacy over epistemology.

[Plasmatic]

No.

Which is highly agreeable with Objectivism's prove/validate distinction, or in other words that existence has primacy over epistemology.

Are you inclined to elaborate on your "no"?

Are you asserting that"proof" is less epistemological than "truth" ?

Edited June 3, 2009 by Plasmatic

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Given volition, and given a set of "laws of physics" is there a contradiction or can the two be reconciled somehow? The conclusion is that the two are reconciled.

But volition is not about unpredictability and therefore does not need those theorems that physics can't predict everything. The fact that we cannot predict certain things (whether that proposition or true or false) has nothing to do with volition. Volition is about being aware of your consciousness and self-directing it.

A real integration of physics and volition would be to show that given certain configurations of matter, volition is achieved. In other words, there was once thought to be no connection between physics, chemistry, and life; but biochemistry shows that there is and this was accomplished by a real scientific integration. If it is true that we have volition because of the way we are put together, then that would have to be shown. And the guy who came up with that rationalistic tract about unpredictability did not accomplish that.

In fact, if someone is so unpredictable, that means that he is not in self-control -- he's just acting randomly and not exercising his power of volition.

And besides all of that, one's knowledge about quantum physics is at a higher level than one's knowledge about being able to control one's self. So even if one day we do discover how it all fits together, and we can go from, say, sub-atomic particles to deciding what to eat for dinner, we have not gotten beneath the fact that we can direct ourselves. That we can direct ourselves and our minds to learn about reality comes first, and one cannot get beneath that. This is what it means to say that volition is axiomatic for man. It is a self-evident truth about the nature man, and all the knowledge of the universe comes after realizing this; such knowledge about the universe is higher on the hierarchy of knowledge, not beneath it. Just as your knowledge of molecules is higher on the hierarchy than observing the glass in front of you.

Added on edit: Harry Binswanger has done some work on the nature of volition. The one I've read and highly recommend is Volition as Cognitive Self-Regulation. The point regarding this aspect of this thread is that you must engage in cognitive self-regulation in order to understand quantum physics, and therefore one's knowledge of quantum physics is logically dependent upon volition, not the other way around.

Edited June 3, 2009 by Thomas M. Miovas Jr.

[Grames]

Are you inclined to elaborate on your "no"?

Are you asserting that"proof" is less epistemological than "truth" ?

No, because a debate over what Godel's Incompleteness Proof means belongs in another thread.

"Proof" is actually more epistemological than "truth", in that truth is not just reducible to the metaphysical level but for some primaries and concretes truth is the metaphysical level and proof does not apply.

[Grames]

But volition is not about unpredictability ...

I'm not prepared to agree with that. If one is predictable at every level at all times then one is manipulable and controllable, in fact already in the thrall of other factors. One is a puppet, exactly the argument the determinist makes.

A real integration of physics and volition would be to show that given certain configurations of matter, volition is achieved. In other words, there was once thought to be no connection between physics, chemistry, and life; but biochemistry shows that there is and this was accomplished by a real scientific integration. If it is true that we have volition because of the way we are put together, then that would have to be shown. And the guy who came up with that rationalistic tract about unpredictability did not accomplish that.

True enough, but that wasn't the point. Godel's Incompleteness Proof is a rationalist refutation of rationalism. It works specifically for number theory, it is generalizable, it can be redeployed against determinism, which is essentially a rationalist argument dating back to the greeks thus predating modern physics. Perhaps I'm still just enough of a rationalist to appreciate the elegance of the argument.

No argument vs. hierarchy.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

The thing about predictability versus unpredictability regarding volition is that some philosophers confuse volition with randomness, which is an unacceptable approach. Due to the fact that man has volition, I cannot predict ahead of time how some people will respond to my posts. However, after being involved in discussion groups for about 25 years, I can't say that anyone has ever replied randomly. So, I'm not saying volition or understanding volition leads to predictability in the specifics, but certainly once you know someone well, you can predict things about them -- such as they will like certain movies or will show up to work on time or will like your art etc. In a sense, the unpredictability is there (in the details), but it is not really essential about volition. So focusing on unpredictability for volition means that one is focusing on a non-essential aspect of volition (non-essential epistemologically). The essential is that volition means having self-control over one's consciousness and one's actions. Not that this self-control will always be there, because it requires an act of will, but rather that given that a man has volition, he can have self-control. I think this is understood in common parlance, for example when someone gets so angry they lose self-control, and even the common man will say something like, "Man he lost it!" What are they saying he lost? His self-control.