Determinism.....

[Edwardo Piet]

Used to believe in free will. Science has recently shown that it is unlikely. Our subconscious mind makes decisions before our conscious apparently thinks about it.

Yeah, you mentioned an article on it ages ago. Do you still have the link, or no where it is? I've lost it.

I know the Quantum universe is indeterministic. I don't know whether this necessarily means the whole of our reality is. I don't know if it's randomness, or just determined physics we haven't figured out yet.

From what I hear, quantum mechanics supports an indeterministic universe. But I don't really know on that matter. I don't know if the universe is determined or not.

I don't believe in free will though. Whether our conscious mind makes decisions first or not (and it apparently doesn't), simply because I think whether our actions are determined or undetermined, I don't see how we can force our actions to be different than how they are - I don't see how we're any more free than a fish, a fly, or a rock in that sense. Whether determined or undetermined, stuff is happening, and in any given moment I don't see how we can change that. If it can be another way, because it's undetermined, how can we make it so exactly? Where's the evidence for that?

I'd accept a compatibilist sense of 'Free Will', but like the incompatabilists, I don't think simply being able to do things uncoherced, is worthy of the term 'free will'. I think the fact we can do things, and that people who aren't imprisoned - for example - are less free than those who aren't: I don't see that as worthy as the label 'free will'.

We have wills, some of us are more 'free' than others, in the sense we have external freedom. But our wills themselves, as far as I know are completely automated and mechanical, whether determined or not...they're not free - our wills themselves aren't free, so we don't have 'Free Will'.

That's my view.

EvF

[Violet]

Who gives a damn if our conscious or subconscious is making the decision? It is still us making the decision. So yes, we have free will. That we can choose wrongly means our will is still free. Once we become capable of only the wisest option: we become computers, which are enslaved logic machines.

You have a computer that can make illogical choices... and you either have a wrecked computer, or you have free will. Show me that the subconscious always chooses rightly: and you will have shown that free will does not exist when a subconscious is present.

As I've said many times before... all of our knowledge is but the assumption that we are right. The subconscious may decide before conscious decision... but it is the conscious that justifies this decision. There are two parts of choice... firstly, there is what. What is there to choose between? And secondly? There is why. Why choose that choice? Our free will is dependent upon not only seeing the choices... but in justifying them.

You may have the impulse to take a bigger slice of pie... that is a subconscious decision. The subconscious is not capable of thought, nor is it 'aware' of its surroundings. It is simply the underlying bios upon which our operating system (consciousness) is built. It might reach decisions faster than the operating system... but that is only because it functions simply.

When have you made a decision that you haven't justified? You do not... you cannot... make such choices. Therefore you have free will. Therefore all of life has free will. Maybe the choice is simple... but it nonetheless is a choice. If something alive does not make choices... it is a biological machine. Synthetic intelligences are likewise mechanical life. Life always has free will... because life always has choice... and when life has choice: it will always choose. It will choose... what mechanism it justifies it's choice by does not make it any less a choice.

[fr0d0]

That is what I'm thinking Sae. Beautifully put. That's possibly the best thing I've seen you write. No free will equals a restriction on our choice. That our choice results from influences does not equate to lack of choice. Nice one. Thanks.

[Tiberius]

I dont think that proves we don't have free will, cant it just mean that we make decisions before we realise we do?

No, because it's not our conscious mind making the decision. Sure, it's still *us* as in our body, but it isn't an active choice that we think about in our head. If I show you two balls, one red and one blue, and ask you to choose one of them, you think about it, and finally decide on the red one. However the research shows that before you've actively made the final decision in your conscious mind, your subconscious has already done it. In other words, all our conscious mind is doing is taking orders from our subconscious. Given that we cannot control our subconscious, I don't see how we can have free will. All decisions we think we make are all orders from our subconscious mind.

Who gives a damn if our conscious or subconscious is making the decision? It is still us making the decision. So yes, we have free will. That we can choose wrongly means our will is still free. Once we become capable of only the wisest option: we become computers, which are enslaved logic machines.

It matters quite a bit. Free will depends on the conscious mind making the decision, not the subconscious. If the conscious mind makes the decision, then you (as in you as a person, thinking, etc) make the decision. You actively think, "I'll choose the red ball" and do so. If the subconscious is simply telling your conscious mind to think "I'll choose the red ball", and you have no control over your subconscious, then we have no free will.

Show me that the subconscious always chooses rightly: and you will have shown that free will does not exist when a subconscious is present.

Please explain how "right" and "wrong" have anything to do with free will. Free will is the ability to actively make decisions in your conscious mind without any external influences. Something external might influence your thinking about the decision, but it doesn't *have* to influence it.

You may have the impulse to take a bigger slice of pie... that is a subconscious decision. The subconscious is not capable of thought, nor is it 'aware' of its surroundings. It is simply the underlying bios upon which our operating system (consciousness) is built. It might reach decisions faster than the operating system... but that is only because it functions simply.

Didn't know you were suddenly a neuroscientist. Unfortunately I'm pretty sure all *real* neuroscientists disagree with what you've said here. The subconscious mind does think, and it is far from simple.

[Violet]

free will
noun
the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

It matters quite a bit. Free will depends on the conscious mind making the decision, not the subconscious. If the conscious mind makes the decision, then you (as in you as a person, thinking, etc) make the decision. You actively think, "I'll choose the red ball" and do so. If the subconscious is simply telling your conscious mind to think "I'll choose the red ball", and you have no control over your subconscious, then we have no free will.

I still made the decision. That I thought about my decision before I made it doesn't make my decision any less made. Your subconscious is a part of you, is it not? As such, this subconscious was free to make a choice... a choice which you justified with your conscious. It was completely your decision.

Think about it this way. I am playing a game of chess with a friend. I have played chess many times, and think I know that they will move into a trap I set up. However, they still have the ability to move to a different place. The subconscious might think that I will chose the red ball... but similarly: I could take an initiative at the last moment and seize the blue one.

Right and wrong have a great deal to do with it. Free will is being able to choose without others telling them or coercion. However, there is no choice if we are programmed to be 'right' every single time a divergent option appears. Simply: we will never choose, we will have only the option of being 'right', even if the option of being wrong seems to present itself. If the subconscious was always right, then yet: we would have no free will. But our subconscious is hardly the best judge to go by. We are only machines... slaves to logic... if our only option is to do what is best.

Didn't know you were suddenly a neuroscientist. Unfortunately I'm pretty sure all *real* neuroscientists disagree with what you've said here. The subconscious mind does think, and it is far from simple.

And you are a neuroscientist I guess? And I suppose that I cannot voice my opinion that a flaming car will crash into you... unless I hold an advanced degree in physics? Simply, bring your evidence for why you would say all of that. Here is some lingual evidence against the subconscious being as aware as the conscious... in other words: subconscious is a mislabeled term if it is greater than or equal to the conscious.

Sub- (a prefix) is attached to a word to show that it is lesser or that it is beneath. In example: Sub-human, sub-marine, sub-machine gun. You will notice: sub-conscious. In some way or another, the sub-conscious is beneath the conscious. I take it neuroscientists are not often linguists?

[fr0d0]

I don't think the complexity or simplicity of the subconscious has any bearing. I think Adrian skipped over the important concept which is that it is still us making the decision even if that's mechanically generated by the subconscious.

Where is free will defined as separate from a subconscious decision? The "rational agent" can be conscious or subconscious. Even with your plea to complexity of the subconscious you're conceding this.

In moral accountability if you didn't have the right to choose you couldn't be held responsible for the morality of your choices.

(an excerpt from a convo with Evie the other day: )

You can change your mind because you have the _liberty_ to do so.

If you had no liberty of will, ie God did not _give_ you free will, then you would have no choices to make. No matter what your mechanical desires you couldn't ever follow them. Because God, for example, would force you to always do good and be nice all the time.

Now in physical reality 'prison' is the obvious simile for God disallowing free will. With freedom unrestricted... an individual is _at liberty_ to choose (within the law) to a far greater extent what we do.

[Tiberius]

I still made the decision. That I thought about my decision before I made it doesn't make my decision any less made. Your subconscious is a part of you, is it not? As such, this subconscious was free to make a choice... a choice which you justified with your conscious. It was completely your decision.

This is the thing. The evidence doesn't show that the conscious mind "justifies" the decision made by the subconscious, but is told by the subconscious what to think. Your body made the decision, but that doesn't mean it was a free choice. You are oversimplifying the concept of free will by saying that all choices, irrelevant of where they are made, means the subject has free will. Thus you could argue that on this definition, all animals have free will, even those which we observe to act instinctualy.

Free will for me means that your conscious choice is the original (or deciding) choice. By my definition, we have no free will; by your definition, we do (but then so does everything, including a computer since it is also making decisions...)

Think about it this way. I am playing a game of chess with a friend. I have played chess many times, and think I know that they will move into a trap I set up. However, they still have the ability to move to a different place. The subconscious might think that I will chose the red ball... but similarly: I could take an initiative at the last moment and seize the blue one.

You evidently didn't understand the experiment that I was talking about. The point is, the evidence doesn't say you can "take the initiative at the last moment and seize the blue one". It says that all the conscious mind is is a slave to the subconscious. Even if you were thinking at the last possible moment "I'm going to take the blue one", your subconscious had already made that decision moments before.

Right and wrong have a great deal to do with it. Free will is being able to choose without others telling them or coercion. However, there is no choice if we are programmed to be 'right' every single time a divergent option appears. Simply: we will never choose, we will have only the option of being 'right', even if the option of being wrong seems to present itself. If the subconscious was always right, then yet: we would have no free will. But our subconscious is hardly the best judge to go by. We are only machines... slaves to logic... if our only option is to do what is best.

I never said the subconscious always did the "right" thing. I'm surprised that you think "right" and "wrong" are real concepts, when truthfully we can only say they are subjective. Without free will, I'd say that nothing is "wrong", and nothing is "right" either. We aren't in control of our actions at all. But that has nothing to do with the validity of the concept of us being a slave to the subconscious mind.

And you are a neuroscientist I guess? And I suppose that I cannot voice my opinion that a flaming car will crash into you... unless I hold an advanced degree in physics? Simply, bring your evidence for why you would say all of that.

No, but then if you go and write about how the sub-conscious can't think or isn't aware of our surroundings, I will call you on the bullshit. I don't insist I am right, unlike yourself. I use the evidence that scientists (mainly neuroscientists) have provided. You make it up on the spot.

Here is some lingual evidence against the subconscious being as aware as the conscious... in other words: subconscious is a mislabeled term if it is greater than or equal to the conscious.

Sub- (a prefix) is attached to a word to show that it is lesser or that it is beneath. In example: Sub-human, sub-marine, sub-machine gun. You will notice: sub-conscious. In some way or another, the sub-conscious is beneath the conscious. I take it neuroscientists are not often linguists?

If you really think that the name of something bears total descriptive properties of that thing, then you are clearly a moron. Please don't embarrass yourself again by bringing up such a pathetic argument unless you want to explain how it has any bearing on what we are talking about here.

I don't think the complexity or simplicity of the subconscious has any bearing. I think Adrian skipped over the important concept which is that it is still us making the decision even if that's mechanically generated by the subconscious.

It's still us, but I was assuming we were talking about the mind here. We could get into how we are all composed of atoms, and that there is really nothing special about that, but I didn't think that was what we were talking about. Like I said before, if we go with this definition of free will, I have no problem with it. However I would then propose that we don't have "true free will", and we could discuss that at length. You could use your argument to suggest that anything that has the ability to make decisions has free will. Does a computer have free will, even though the decision is generated by user input?

Where is free will defined as separate from a subconscious decision? The "rational agent" can be conscious or subconscious. Even with your plea to complexity of the subconscious you're conceding this.

The difference between will and "free" will must be clear. If it is free, it means you have total control over the decision, rejecting everything you can and basing your decision completely on your own thinking. If the decision is told to you by your subconscious (as an order), I can't see how that can be construed as free will. If you have to follow it no matter what, freedom disappears.

[Violet]

This is the thing. The evidence doesn't show that the conscious mind "justifies" the decision made by the subconscious, but is told by the subconscious what to think. Your body made the decision, but that doesn't mean it was a free choice. You are oversimplifying the concept of free will by saying that all choices, irrelevant of where they are made, means the subject has free will. Thus you could argue that on this definition, all animals have free will, even those which we observe to act instinctualy.

Free will for me means that your conscious choice is the original (or deciding) choice. By my definition, we have no free will; by your definition, we do (but then so does everything, including a computer since it is also making decisions...)

The body made the decision? Really? Then why have a brain at all? I has smart body

The brain made the decision... something that thought about the choice. That means that the something that thought about the choice was free. Our personality, decisions, and everything in the body is controlled by our mind. There is no programed instinct in choice. None... because an instinct is no different from a computer: a simple program. A reflex. There is no choice in reflex.

Not all of life has free will... that is why I say that some life is a biological machine... and some machines are synthetic life. For it is possible to be alive... and still not live. You could not argue that an instinct, a programmed reflex, is any different than the subroutines of a computer. There is no choice in it, therefore there is no free will. Free will is 100% based upon the ability to choose.

No, but then if you go and write about how the sub-conscious can't think or isn't aware of our surroundings, I will call you on the bullshit. I don't insist I am right, unlike yourself. I use the evidence that scientists (mainly neuroscientists) have provided. You make it up on the spot.

You do insist you are right though. You argued against infinite limits to try to validate .9^=1 because it has a small mathematical following in that thread, and you are arguing against our ability to choose to validate that the subconscious is not us because this theory has a small neuroscientific following. Please stop arguing from 'establishment'... it's driving me nuts.

The subconscious, as I said in my last post... is inferior if it is labeled properly. It remains a part of us, and it is a subject that we do not yet have much more than theories and observations to support. You use evidence you say... so show me evidence. I am a skeptic by nature, and forgive me if I do not believe things just because I am told that 'scientists' think so. I must justify things by me... for I will not believe things without reason to. I may have written an observation off of the top of my head, but that makes it no less valid an observation than one idea written of the top of one's head, and edited 50 times to look better.

I never said the subconscious always did the "right" thing. I'm surprised that you think "right" and "wrong" are real concepts, when truthfully we can only say they are subjective. Without free will, I'd say that nothing is "wrong", and nothing is "right" either. We aren't in control of our actions at all. But that has nothing to do with the validity of the concept of us being a slave to the subconscious mind.

By 'right' and 'wrong', I mean correct and incorrect. I'm overlooked that you might have thought I was referring moral standing... I apologize for the miscommunication. For clarity, I'll call it 'correct/incorrect' from here. And yes, I do think that things can be correct or incorrect... for example: 1=10 is incorrect. 1=1 is correct.

You evidently didn't understand the experiment that I was talking about. The point is, the evidence doesn't say you can "take the initiative at the last moment and seize the blue one". It says that all the conscious mind is is a slave to the subconscious. Even if you were thinking at the last possible moment "I'm going to take the blue one", your subconscious had already made that decision moments before.

Ah, I see what you were trying to say in that instance. As a question of interest: Why does that make your choice any less valid? The subconscious is a part of you... That you decided on it before you acted: isn't that simply called 'wisdom'?

If you really think that the name of something bears total descriptive properties of that thing, then you are clearly a moron. Please don't embarrass yourself again by bringing up such a pathetic argument unless you want to explain how it has any bearing on what we are talking about here.

I think a name should be descriptive... for what other reasons would something have a name? If I call everything 'Chair'... then what does it mean? Not much, to be honest. However, if I use 'chair' to refer to a specific thing: then the properties of all chairs should be similar so far as the definition has placed. It has tremendous bearing on what we are talking about: The subconscious is a mislabeled word IF, and only if it is greater than or equal to consciousness. Simply: if consciousness is the subconscious's slave: then it is the conscious that is lesser, and the term 'subconscious' should be redefined to match what is being described. Call me a moron with an embarrassing argument if you wish... it does not make the argument any less valid.

[Tiberius]

The body made the decision? Really? Then why have a brain at all? I has smart body

Your brain is part of your body. Honestly, do you just try to make moronic jokes when debating? Right, next...

The brain made the decision... something that thought about the choice. That means that the something that thought about the choice was free. Our personality, decisions, and everything in the body is controlled by our mind. There is no programed instinct in choice. None... because an instinct is no different from a computer: a simple program. A reflex. There is no choice in reflex.

Non-sequitur. It does not follow that because the brain thought about it, the choice was free. A computer "thinks" about a problem, but it doesn't have a free choice in the answer. The answer is determined by it's programming, literally the way it thinks about things. What I am arguing is that a "free" choice must depend on the conscious mind, given that the sub-conscious is not where we do our conscious thinking (hence the name). Free will can be summarized as "free conscious thought". In other words, when we think in our conscious mind about a decision, and make a choice, that choice developed through our conscious thoughts. Neuroscience currently says the complete opposite, that the choice we think we make in our conscious mind is actually being practically ordered at us by our subconscious. Our conscious thought process in this aspect is mere illusion.

Not all of life has free will... that is why I say that some life is a biological machine... and some machines are synthetic life. For it is possible to be alive... and still not live. You could not argue that an instinct, a programmed reflex, is any different than the subroutines of a computer. There is no choice in it, therefore there is no free will. Free will is 100% based upon the ability to choose.

Yes, and how do we know we have the ability to choose? We don't. What we observe is our conscious minds taking orders from our subconscious minds. We don't get to choose, we get told what to do.

You do insist you are right though. You argued against infinite limits to try to validate .9^=1 because it has a small mathematical following in that thread, and you are arguing against our ability to choose to validate that the subconscious is not us because this theory has a small neuroscientific following. Please stop arguing from 'establishment'... it's driving me nuts.

I love how you try to justify your previous failure to debate me by saying I had a "small mathematical following". Yes, if by "small" you mean the entire scientific community, and everyone apart from 2 people in that thread (fr0d0 got it by the end; as I recall, only you and leo were left).

I don't insist I am right. I believe I am, but then I don't find it valuable arguing my position when I assume the opposite. I can imagine arguing from establishment would be irritating to you. In all the debates I have seen you in, you have never conceded a single point. You have a plainly arrogant nature, you always think you are correct, and even when your arguments are shown to be filled with logical fallacies, you continue with them like there is no tomorrow. You aren't the kind of person I'd choose the debate with, not because I think your position is either correct or interesting, but because it's like arguing with a brick wall.

The subconscious, as I said in my last post... is inferior if it is labeled properly. It remains a part of us, and it is a subject that we do not yet have much more than theories and observations to support. You use evidence you say... so show me evidence. I am a skeptic by nature, and forgive me if I do not believe things just because I am told that 'scientists' think so. I must justify things by me... for I will not believe things without reason to. I may have written an observation off of the top of my head, but that makes it no less valid an observation than one idea written of the top of one's head, and edited 50 times to look better.

Here are a couple of things I found. There was a early 2009 article I read which I haven't re-discovered yet, but when I find it I'll post that too:

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries...d_decision
http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience...isions.php

By 'right' and 'wrong', I mean correct and incorrect. I'm overlooked that you might have thought I was referring moral standing... I apologize for the miscommunication. For clarity, I'll call it 'correct/incorrect' from here. And yes, I do think that things can be correct or incorrect... for example: 1=10 is incorrect. 1=1 is correct.

So again, how do you measure correctness in anything other than logic? Is is correct to choose to step off the sidewalk now, or 2 seconds from now? One decision might lead to you being run over, but is that necessarily an "incorrect" outcome? What if you'd been planning on killing yourself later that day, and getting hit by a car landed you incapable of doing so; further lying in the hospital you realise you don't want to commit suicide anymore. Far-fetched example? Yeah sure, but no less valid.

Ah, I see what you were trying to say in that instance. As a question of interest: Why does that make your choice any less valid? The subconscious is a part of you... That you decided on it before you acted: isn't that simply called 'wisdom'?

I'm not talking about deciding on it before acting. I'm talking about the subconscious making the decision before the conscious. In other words, your conscious mind (where you do all your thinking...well, at least conscious thinking) isn't making the decision at all. It has no choice. It is told what to do by the subconscious mind. It isn't *you* (as in your personality, your consciousness) making the decision, it is your onboard computer. Acting on brain impulses and instinct, and whatever else happens in there. Your personal ability to think seems to have nothing to do with it.

I think a name should be descriptive... for what other reasons would something have a name? If I call everything 'Chair'... then what does it mean? Not much, to be honest. However, if I use 'chair' to refer to a specific thing: then the properties of all chairs should be similar so far as the definition has placed. It has tremendous bearing on what we are talking about: The subconscious is a mislabeled word IF, and only if it is greater than or equal to consciousness. Simply: if consciousness is the subconscious's slave: then it is the conscious that is lesser, and the term 'subconscious' should be redefined to match what is being described. Call me a moron with an embarrassing argument if you wish... it does not make the argument any less valid.

Complain about the term then. I think you are reading too much into it. To use your previous example of a "submarine", it doesn't mean it is inferior to a "marine" or the sea, or anything else. It just means it operates below it (below in a navigational sense, not a hierarchy sense). The subconscious operates below the conscious mind, in the sense that it is there, but inaccessible to us.

Anyway, my original point was that this was a red herring. Discussing the etymology of a word bears no relation to the concept the word describes.

[Violet]

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries...d_decision

How interesting, from Wired:

Also, the predictions were not completely accurate. Maybe free will enters at the last moment, allowing a person to override an unpalatable subconscious decision.

Strange that I said the same thing about the balls above. Anyway, an interesting thing:

"It's not like you're a machine. Your brain activity is the physiological substance in which your personality and wishes and desires operate," he said.

Have I said anything different? Not at all. That a subroutine (subconscious) decides on the decision before we are made aware of it makes the decision (conscious) less complicated. That the subconscious part of the brain comes up with such an arbitrary decision as to which hand by which to push a button: the process of conscious decision is almost completely unnecessary.

I have a question to ask of this... (which the article makes provision for with

---

"Real-life decisions -- am I going to buy this house or that one, take this job or that -- aren't decisions that we can implement very well in our brain scanners," said Haynes.

---

) and my question is this: Why would we not automate this process? It requires nothing more than moving one's arms, and pushing a button... something we often do without bothering to think about it. There is no thought to take place in the process, so how is this evidence against free thought? It is an automatic process... the subconscious is an automatic process... why justify the arbitrary decision?

This seems to suggest even further (to me at least), that the subconscious is a simple system. Just a simply On/Off system. Why should a subconscious be anything more?

Btw, I could not access http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience...isions.php because it is blocked (web pages/personal... i despise school block). I'll look over the rest of your post soon, but I've many questions for the evidence you cited.