tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7532871.post2455539380844701267..comments2024-03-13T13:29:33.800-05:00Comments on SocraticGadfly: Free will, a confabulation? Or "mu," part 4Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7532871.post-28201927920328093772015-02-09T20:26:58.040-06:002015-02-09T20:26:58.040-06:00It sounds from your response that I wrote the wron...It sounds from your response that I wrote the wrong tone into my comment. I recognized you were not supporting determinism, I just thought you were using week or the wrong arguments.<br />Consider, if you will, the following:<br /><br />Demonstrating free will should be extremely trivial if the test is appropriate and appropriately interpreted. You make issue with the ‘old’ Lipet test and how much things have advanced in 30 years. No advance in the last decades appear to be really relevant yet, and the advances necessary to decide this question have been in place over 30,000 years – since the development of modern human language. The only real advance to how we might understand the significance of the free will question is from Darwin. Evolution sheds little light on IF we have it, just how or why we do (evolutionary theory requires free will – but the educated among us have known for 3,000 years that we have it, so nothing new there). Evolution tells us quite clearly why we have free will: The Ultimate Cause of free will is the competitive posture it provides. All that remains is the detailed Proximate Cause, for which we must wait for neuro science to sort out.<br />Free will is so basic to our brain operation that it drives virtually every decision we will ever make to include our very ability to walk or talk. Consider the so-called feral children, who through childhood neglect, will never be able to stand upright nor converse. The real distinctions will be in the decisions. At a first cut, do they follow a strict pattern laid out by heredity, or is every/nearly every decision unique and tailored to the circumstances? To list just a few of the disconnects between Lipet and determinism we have: Students pushing buttons, sitting in chairs and at desks. Putting labels as ‘A’ and ‘B’ on buttons and thinking that meant anything. Asking questions of ‘Students’ that involved something other than dealing with food, shelter, mate selection or predators. <br />The next big clue is in the learning process. With a determined system, you upload a table of conditions and the required response. We cannot do that with brains, but we do present problems and challenges which each individual must then analyze, experiment with and ultimately solve for them self. Starting with waving our arms, feeding ourselves (with parent provided food) and soon walking and talking.<br />This basic process must have started early in the evolutionary landscape as such was varied and unpredictable – as was each individual born or hatched. Critters with brains navigate their environment. Variations in each individual, both birth by birth, and through life as they grow and mature cannot be predetermined. Similarly, every individual is born into (if only slightly) different landscapes with different resources and different risks. There was never a chance for nature to collect enough information about the conditions any animal would face to construct a ‘deterministic’ brain that would allow for competitive behavior. Think of the challenge to a runner through a mile race. Every neuron controlling each of the muscles in his body: toes, feet legs, trunk, neck, face, arms and hands must adjust constantly through the race as fatigue builds, when a pack of competitors must be navigated, a divot in the track and a lost shoe must be avoided. I haven’t mentioned eyes, ears and the other senses offering feedback. All our neurons are constantly adjusting to solve a new set of problems – and then your wife and kids start throwing around questions … <br />Determinism never had a chance. Only libertarian free will can handle a day in any life, and far less than 1% of that ever makes it to your conscious awareness.Alanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11922411875231697728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7532871.post-16694781445423794402015-02-07T17:34:24.421-06:002015-02-07T17:34:24.421-06:00Alan, assuming you're coming from SciSal, I ne...Alan, assuming you're coming from SciSal, I never said Libet "disproved free will." I've always said what I've said here, or similar, that it has seemingly undercut <b>"robust classical ideas of free will"</b> or something similar.<br /><br />As for David's contention that it actually supports such ideas, I simply agree. (I see him as defending such "robust" ideas.)<br /><br />And, I've stated here and there we should talk about Libet-class experiments, not Libet, as his original was more than 30 years ago.<br /><br />I've long been moving in the direction of all three "mu" posts, just further developing ideas every time that we need to keep saying "mu" to "classical" ideas of "free will versus determinism" and related issues.Gadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075757287807731373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7532871.post-28469088396419628962015-02-07T15:59:50.032-06:002015-02-07T15:59:50.032-06:00Entertaining, but ... Benjamin Libet's famous ...Entertaining, but ... Benjamin Libet's famous experiments have absolutely nothing to do with issues of free will – that confusion is a complete category mistake. Once you grasp the experiment, it supports free will, not determinism. <br />David Ottlinger’s comment ‘It’s the the common opinion of philosophers that Libet is very little obstacle to free will.’ Is understated if anything.<br /><br />To warm up, ‘research experiments that have addressed the issue of whether people had enough time to "decide" to undertake an action.’ Are testing rate, not technique. A complete category mistake to apply to free will. Muscles do not ‘act’ save for a neural ‘decision’.<br /><br />You are moving in a positive direction with: ‘First, as for the issue of consciousness? … the amount of our brain that is engaged in conscious … processes may be closer to 10 percent … and surely isn’t 90 percent. … we often don't have time for such detailed modeling. … <br />Second, when we do, if the situation's not totally novel, the modeling is usually at least in part subconscious. I think much of the “choice” being made is not at a fully conscious level.’<br />‘… we know that our brain tries to automate, or at least semi-automate, as many processes as it can, to save energy consumption. And, this process results in some of this modeling being done at a less than fully conscious level.’<br /><br />Now I think Libet, et al did show that much of this decision process was subconscious, as well as very fast. This last challenging your minor point ‘to save energy consumption’ – I will suggest it is done to save time. Let’s clear up another point you touched on: ‘if the situation's not totally novel’. If a free will decision was made a year ago, and has become a habit, that ‘habit’ is not determinism, but a time saving expedient. Similarly, every habit you parents acquired has the option of being taught to you. The effect or impact of free will spans generations which adds to the deception that there is some determinism where it really does not exist.Alanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11922411875231697728noreply@blogger.com