I have come to read this after commenting on another article by @amarie which talked about this very article. I think it is appropriate for me to reproduce most of that comment here. I'd like to read whichever you may have to say on this. Here it goes.
The principle of causality is not incompatible with the existence of free will.
From a physical point of view, the principle of causality is a statement regarding the time ordering of events which have some causal relation between them. Simply put, it states that effects cannot chronologically precede causes. If you take time as an absolute concept, this is a rather trivial idea, but in a relativistic model of the universe, which requires dropping the notion of time being absolute, different observers can make very different reconstructions of the history of a given set of events. What they absolutely need to agree on, in order for causality to be in place, is in finding causes happening before their respective effects.
Now this principle of causality is not synonymous with determinism, particularly causal determinism. Briefly, it states that every single event in the universe is a necessary consequence of a set of preexisting conditions which may be regarded as the causes of the event, and the event their effect. And while the principle of causality is profoundly embedded in any formulation of the accessible reality, probably because it reflects a basic feature of the universe, causal determinism is completely put at bay by quantum mechanics' description of the most basic constituents of reality that we know of.
At the quantum level, an event is not a necessary consequence, but a compatible consequence of a set of preexisting conditions. For a given configuration of a system at some given instant, there is not a single necessary point in configuration space for the system to move to. In a not very rigorous way, one can think of the system as accumulating potentials for evolving into a (possibly large) set of points, from which one is eventually chosen according to a probability distribution. Even though there are causal relations between events (in the sense of the principle of causality), there is no causal determinism in quantum mechanics, at least not in the classical sense.
Now, how does this relate with free will? A completely farfetched argument would be that the inherent uncertainty underlying the quantum mechanics' form of causality proves that there is free will. I think it should be easy to see how this is an unreasonable stretch. However, quantum mechanics does tell us that, at the most basic level that we are aware of, reality is not really deterministic, but more of a stochastic nature. If we assume that consciousness and, therefore, volition, operate on the basis of biochemical and electrical processes in neural networks, and that at least some of these processes occur according to quantum rules, then there is a lot of space for some level of non-determinism to be part of consciousness processes.
In summary, even if the classical realm of physics seems completely deterministic, free will might still be perfectly compatible with it, because at the smallest scales the apparently deterministic reality in which we live is actually a very fuzzy succession of probable configurations and outcomes.
You can't bridge the micro-cosmos with the macro since it does not affect us directly.
Moreover he quantum events that happen in other people's minds affect your own "Free will".
Before making this essay you should try and prove/demonstrate that free will exists by using at least a rational example that is free from determinism.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
As should have been clear from my comment, I do not propose to prove the existence of free will. I actually do not know for sure it it exists or not. My thesis is clearly as simply stated at the beginning: the principle of causality is not incompatible with the existence of free will. Then, I go on to distinguish between this principle and the idea of causal determinism, which is one of the most assumptions on which the non-existence of free will is based upon. I argue that causal determinism is not a universal and fundamental principle underlying physical phenomena, at least at smaller scales, and that this lack of determinism leaves space for some sort of free will to exist.
You seem to insist on the idea that, if the options available to someone are not infinite nor equally likely an accessible, then there is no free will. This is very odd to me. Could you maybe formulate a clear definition of what you mean by free will? Because it seems to me that we might actually be using the same words to talk about different concepts.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
if you are making such a statement surely you need to prove that it exists.
Let's talk with examples then. You watch an ad on tv with subliminal messages for buying a burger. You buy a burger 3 days later because you are hungry. How do you know you have not been influenced by that ad? How much of that "will" was really "Free"?
I hope the example helps
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
My statement is a conceptual one, not an empirical one. It simply states that, within a logical framework, two given concepts are consistent with each other. To ask for proof of the realization of a given concept in reality is a misleading way of not addressing the logical issue that is actually addressed in my statement.
Regarding your example, it doesn't provide, as asked, a clear definition of the concept of free will. It simply illustrates an interaction process which modulates the accessible choices and their likelihoods, not an elimination of all alternatives except for one necessary consequence. I urge you to provide a definition of free will in order for us to establish a common basis of understanding.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Definition: Free will is the assumption that human beings can take actions or make decisions independent of environmental stimuli
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I thank you for providing this definition.
If I take that definition of free will then I agree completely that it does not exist. The existence of such a form of free will would be the same as saying that human beings are of a metaphysical nature, completely disconnected from everything else. It would be a self-evident nonsense.
Humans and their minds are physical processes which are in constant interaction with their surroundings. Besides that, being composite systems, a human being's several constituent parts also interact among each other. Interactions form causal structures along the evolution of systems. These very basic concepts underlie the entirety of our scientific understanding of the universe.
I would, however, propose a different definition of free will, one which might actually be subject to a meaningful discussion. While it is an evident truth that actions and decisions are causally influenced, through interactions, by a number of internal and external states of affairs, I argue that the structure of such causal relations may not be deterministic in nature, but rather probabilistic. This hypothesis is grounded on the observation that, at its core, reality does not seem to follow causal determinism.
The question I would then posit is: given a certain action or decision taken by a human agent, is it a unique necessary consequence of preexisting conditions, or just one among a causally consistent set of possibilities? For me, this constitutes the real open question regarding any sort of free will, which I would define as human agency and volition, as a system, having a consistent room of possibilities to evolve into, instead of a single necessary consequence.
Stating that no absolute freedom exists in the physical world seems to me like stating that the sky is blue. I will appreciate your comments on my observations.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I think Sam Harris can answer your question much better.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I agree that "our neural physiology is going to give rise to every next thought and intention that shows up". This guy is cleverly pointing out important causal structures underlying agency and volition. He does not, however, discuss the quality of the causal structure, implicitly assuming a simple causal deterministic nature for it.
Also, I agree that "if I can predict what you're going to do before you're aware of what you're going to do, then the basis for free will seems to go out the window". However, for this to be really persuasive as a definitive objection to free will, it had be true for any conceivable action or thought. Many of our states of mind may run on some kind of autopilot, mainly for efficiency and evolutionary reasons, but that is not the same as saying that there is no room for different possibilities when a conscious process of consideration is undertaken by a subject.
Sam Harris illustrates his point by talking about the Libet experiment (or some version of it), which pertains to predicting an extremely simple action with only two possibilities by construction. While it is a groundbreaking experiment into the complex interplay between neural network configurations and mind states, it can't be taken, in such a simple form, as a strong statement against any form of free will. Furthermore, you should be aware of the many philosophers who provide good reasons for dismissing Libet's experiment as evidence against free will, namely Daniel Dennett, criticizing not only the conceptual interpretation of the results, but also the experimental setup. Only an ability to fully reproduce a deterministic causal chain between neurological processes and mind states would constitute convincing evidence. I'm not saying that there is no deterministic causal chain; I'm just saying we're not in a position to affirm that there is.
I didn't watch the movie till the end. I'd like to read what YOUR thoughts, not Sam Harris. And please, don't insist on the idea that we, as physical objects, and subject to causal influences stemming from interactions between our constituent systems and between ourselves and our surroundings. My question is about the causal modality of these interactions, not whether they exist or not. I'm 100% with you in that respect. Now, does this causation have to be in the form of causal determinism?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Also, it is certainly not true that the micro-cosmos and the macro-cosmos are causally disconnected. I don't know where you have taken this idea from. Could you elaborate on this, please?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I am not a physicist but I haven't seen any studies that breach the micro with the macro. in fact this is the greatest problem of all physics and why gravity is such a peculiar thing. :)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This is not the greatest problem of physics. You are probably alluding to the difficulty in formulating a quantum field theory of gravitation, which does not mean at all that the micro-cosmos and the macro-cosmos are causally disconnected. Several examples of macroscopically observable quantum phenomena exist, namely superconductivity and superfluidy. Current electronic technologies, whose functioning relies on the quantum properties of semiconductor materials which are used to build transistors, are ubiquitous manifestations of quantum laws underlying the operation of macroscopic systems. Then, there is Ehrenfest's theorem, which attempts to illustrate how classical laws of motion for the expectation values of a system's kinematical and dynamical variables may be derived from quantum mechanics. Additionally, there are some more recent experiments and theoretical ideas which support the connection between micro and macro phenomena. Some examples are the quantum entanglement of many-particle systems (which is relevant for quantum computation) and the concept of decoherence as being at the core of the emergence of classical behavior on the basis of a quantum reality.
Again, none of this is intended to be proof of the existence of free will. It serves only to illustrate how causal determinism is not a very accurate model of the universe as far as our current best understanding allows us to see.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
let's follow the conversation on the other thread where i provided a definition.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit