About the illusion of free will

[eschereal]

Somebody, please, have a go at computer programming.

These days, the accepted proper technique is to code small routines, bottom-to-top. Anything that makes you have to scroll on an average monitor is considered large. Modern compilers have excellent optimization capabilities, small pieces of code can be welded together to make an efficient program (I will not touch on the advantages of verbosity because that is not relevant here).

The brain works prettymuch the same way. Thousands of concise elements do simple things, more small elements coördinate the actions of the simple elements, on up the hierarchy to the functions we can seem to observe acting at the uppermost levels. Our brains are like huge maple trees, with our consciousness focused at the trunk. And we can see about to the epipelagic depth of our function, nowhere near its benthic depths. What forms our choices is sometimes obvious, but often obscured by many layers.

My favorite exercise for observing this is to look, something I picked up from a Japanese fencing manual. Just try to see everything in your field of view. Everything. After doing this for a minute or so, how ever much you can stand, take some time to reflect on how much you are not seeing almost all the time. Your brain is discarding humongous amounts of information constantly, and you are not really even aware that it is happening most of the time.

That is just a tiny windowpane into the depths of your mind. What goes on in there (like how you get a sudden urge to write or paint or break into song or whatever) is not to be treated lightly. You can describe the origins or your choices and actions as “free will”, but that is little more than hand-waving that adds nothing of value to the conversation. Until we can realistically map the whole of the brain’s source code, and then start to understand how the routines interact with each other, all this vacuous philosophizing is inconsequential. Fapilosophy, I guess.

[Pjen]

@eschereal

Somebody, please, have a go at computer programming.

These days, the accepted proper technique is to code small routines, bottom-to-top. Anything that makes you have to scroll on an average monitor is considered large. Modern compilers have excellent optimization capabilities, small pieces of code can be welded together to make an efficient program (I will not touch on the advantages of verbosity because that is not relevant here).

The brain works prettymuch the same way. Thousands of concise elements do simple things, more small elements coördinate the actions of the simple elements, on up the hierarchy to the functions we can seem to observe acting at the uppermost levels. Our brains are like huge maple trees, with our consciousness focused at the trunk. And we can see about to the epipelagic depth of our function, nowhere near its benthic depths. What forms our choices is sometimes obvious, but often obscured by many layers.

My favorite exercise for observing this is to look, something I picked up from a Japanese fencing manual. Just try to see everything in your field of view. Everything. After doing this for a minute or so, how ever much you can stand, take some time to reflect on how much you are not seeing almost all the time. Your brain is discarding humongous amounts of information constantly, and you are not really even aware that it is happening most of the time.

That is just a tiny windowpane into the depths of your mind. What goes on in there (like how you get a sudden urge to write or paint or break into song or whatever) is not to be treated lightly. You can describe the origins or your choices and actions as “free will”, but that is little more than hand-waving that adds nothing of value to the conversation. Until we can realistically map the whole of the brain’s source code, and then start to understand how the routines interact with each other, all this vacuous philosophizing is inconsequential. Fapilosophy, I guess.

You need to read Searle’s Chinese Room argument to understand why computer intelligence is different from consciousness.

Chinese

There are no indications of consciousness in animal terms in any computer. They are very good with facts but lack the ability to give meaning to such facts.

[Pjen]

@common_good

I don’t know. Where do ant hills and bee hives come from ? Conscious volition ?

Ant hills and bee hives are good examples of decisions being made without a commanding consciousness.

[Trinopus]

@common_good

I don’t know. Where do ant hills and bee hives come from ? Conscious volition ?

Probably not. You could make a vague argument that a bee hive, as an entity, is somehow “conscious” of its environment, but I don’t think most people would agree with it.

[Trinopus]

re: “What is the difference between being accountable and being responsible for an act.”

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

. . . When speaking conversationally, I use 'em somewhat interchangeably. But when strict accuracy is called for, I stick to the dictionary definition, where accountability is “the quality or state of being accountable; especially : an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one’s actions”; by contrast, “responsible” is defined as “liable to be called to account … marked by or involving responsibility or accountability”. Wait, that’s no help; neither is the thesaurus; and we already covered the ‘conversational’ angle; so, dang.

But, yes, if I’m in a hair-splitting mood, I can delve deep into the dictionary for a note about – well, it’s more what’s implied and suggested, but I guess that counts: “responsible implies holding a specific office, duty, or trust <the bureau responsible for revenue collection>. answerable suggests a relation between one having a moral or legal obligation and a court or other authority charged with oversight of its observance <an intelligence agency answerable to Congress>. accountable suggests imminence of retribution for unfulfilled trust or violated obligation <elected officials are accountable to the voters>” Man, that’s good stuff. . . .

Well, gosh, the answer is easy! The first means you may be called to give an account, while the second means you may be called to respond.

There’s all the difference in the world. Oops, except there isn’t! The two are the same. They both put you in a position of having to give an answer. (“Answerable” is another synonym.)

The cute thing about all of these is they don’t put you in a position of having to make restitution, or be punished, or apologize. You just have to answer questions.

Modern morality suggests we have to “accept the consequences” of our actions, and that’s getting more into the area of restitution or punishment. But it’s still sloppy, because a great deal of our civilization is built around remedies for the consequences of our actions.

If I go skiing, and break my leg, do I have to “accept” it, and leave it untreated, or is it okay to have the bone set and a cast put over it? How is the latter not “avoiding the consequences of my actions?” I avoid lots of the consequences of my actions…by taking advantage of available remedies!

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Trinopus

There’s all the difference in the world. Oops, except there isn’t! The two are the same. They both put you in a position of having to give an answer. (“Answerable” is another synonym.)

The cute thing about all of these is they don’t put you in a position of having to make restitution, or be punished, or apologize. You just have to answer questions.

See, the key is that we can still put criminals in a position of having to make restitution or be punished; we just (a) do so, and then (b) answer questions.

(The judge, the jailer, even the executioner: is he responsible? Or is he just all-caps ACCOUNTABLE? So much depends on – no, wait; it doesn’t.)

[Pjen]

@Trinopus

re: “What is the difference between being accountable and being responsible for an act.”

Well, gosh, the answer is easy! The first means you may be called to give an account, while the second means you may be called to respond.

There’s all the difference in the world. Oops, except there isn’t! The two are the same. They both put you in a position of having to give an answer. (“Answerable” is another synonym.)

The cute thing about all of these is they don’t put you in a position of having to make restitution, or be punished, or apologize. You just have to answer questions.

Modern morality suggests we have to “accept the consequences” of our actions, and that’s getting more into the area of restitution or punishment. But it’s still sloppy, because a great deal of our civilization is built around remedies for the consequences of our actions.

If I go skiing, and break my leg, do I have to “accept” it, and leave it untreated, or is it okay to have the bone set and a cast put over it? How is the latter not “avoiding the consequences of my actions?” I avoid lots of the consequences of my actions…by taking advantage of available remedies!

The way the words are used in the debate about Free Will is to differentiate between Libertarian Action where the person is RESPONSIBLE (the cause of an action)and Compatibilist Action where a person is ACCOUNTABLE (may be treated as if they were the cause of an action.)

If a person is Responsible for an action they truly were part of the causative chain. If they are Accountable then they may merely by social agreement be treated as if they were part of the causative chain.

DO you understand the split between Libertarianism (People’s thoughts and intentions actually have a role in cause) and Determinism (thoughts and intentions are not part of the causal chain). Compatibilists are Determinists who believe that it is possible to speak as if thought caused action, even though it does not.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Pjen

The way the words are used in the debate about Free Will is to differentiate between Libertarian Action where the person is RESPONSIBLE (the cause of an action)and Compatibilist Action where a person is ACCOUNTABLE (may be treated as if they were the cause of an action.)

So if they’re RESPONSIBLE, we may treat 'em as if they were the cause of an action; if they’re ACCOUNTABLE, we may treat 'em as if they were the cause of an action.

I’d say it’s a distinction without a difference – but I’m not sure whether to use all-caps for DISTINCTION or DIFFERENCE. (Or maybe the whole phrase?)

[Pjen]

I have been a poster here for over fourteen years and have never before had to do this, but I am putting The Other Waldo Pepper on ignore. It is most frustrating when people purposely refuse to debate and totally misunderstand the nature of what is being discussed.

[Trinopus]

@Pjen

. . . DO you understand the split between Libertarianism (People’s thoughts and intentions actually have a role in cause) and Determinism (thoughts and intentions are not part of the causal chain). . . .

Isn’t that what this debate thread is all about? Some people believe in volition, and others don’t.

(I’m not comfortable with the introduction of the term “Libertarianism” here, as it has a meaning in political science that is very different from how it’s used here.)

[Trinopus]

Going back half a quote…

@Pjen

The way the words are used in the debate about Free Will is to differentiate between Libertarian Action where the person is RESPONSIBLE (the cause of an action)and Compatibilist Action where a person is ACCOUNTABLE (may be treated as if they were the cause of an action.)

If a person is Responsible for an action they truly were part of the causative chain. If they are Accountable then they may merely by social agreement be treated as if they were part of the causative chain. . . .

I don’t see any point to these definitions, either. The words already have definitions in other fields, including moral philosophy.

If I’m not really the cause of an action, then I don’t have any “accountability” in the standard moral sense. This is starting to feel like Aristotelian language.

[Pjen]

@Trinopus

Isn’t that what this debate thread is all about? Some people believe in volition, and others don’t.

(I’m not comfortable with the introduction of the term “Libertarianism” here, as it has a meaning in political science that is very different from how it’s used here.)

Libertarianism is the Philosophical term for a believer in Free Will. It is the opposite of Determinism- the denial of Free Will. Compatibilists are Determinists who allow the use of Free Will not as a cause but as a description of human behaviour.

None of that is up for debate. those are the terms you will find in a text on Free Will.

[Pjen]

@Trinopus

Going back half a quote…

I don’t see any point to these definitions, either. The words already have definitions in other fields, including moral philosophy.

If I’m not really the cause of an action, then I don’t have any “accountability” in the standard moral sense. This is starting to feel like Aristotelian language.

But that is why the two terms are used. Responsibility implies that you initiated the act out of free will- it is a Libertarian explanation. Accountability is a Compatiblist description of behaviour- even though the behaviour is determined solely by physical processes in the brain, a person may be held to account over what their body has done, even though there is no place for will in the chain of causation. Hard determinists would even deny accountability.

[Pjen]

Will Wikipedia do for a start:

Accountability:

“In ethics and governance, accountability is answerability, blameworthiness, liability, and the expectation of account-giving.[1] As an aspect of governance, it has been central to discussions related to problems in the public sector, nonprofit and private (corporate) worlds. In leadership roles,[2] accountability is the acknowledgment and assumption of responsibility for actions, products, decisions, and policies including the administration, governance, and implementation within the scope of the role or employment position and encompassing the obligation to report, explain and be answerable for resulting consequences.”

Accountability

Responsibility:

"Moral responsibility is the status of morally deserving praise, blame, reward, or punishment for an act or omission, in accordance with one’s moral obligations.[1][2] Deciding what if anything is morally obligatory is a principal concern of ethics.

"People who have moral responsibility for an action are called moral agents. Agents are capable of reflecting on their situation, forming intentions about how they will act, and then carrying out that action. The notion of free will is an important issue in the debate on whether individuals are ever morally responsible for their actions and, if so, in what sense. Incompatibilists think that determinism is at odds with free will, whereas compatibilists think the two can coexist.

“Moral responsibility is not necessarily the same as legal responsibility. A person is legally responsible for an event when it is that person who is liable to be penalised in the court system for an event. Although it may often be the case that when a person is morally responsible for an act, they are also legally responsible for it, the two states do not always coincide.[citation needed]”

These are less precise than I would like, but are free of jargon that occurs if I start using academic texts.

[Trinopus]

Shrug. These are just alternative terms and phrases for the two basic viewpoints of the debate.

I don’t care all that much if you call me a Responsibilitst or Libertarian or a Free Willite or Hegelian or whatever. I just don’t see any point to it. I avow volition, so that’s the camp I’m in.

[grude]

Please note I do not believe in the religious definition of free will, or supernatural.

I am also totally uninterested in the criminal punishment aspect, or playing a blame game.

I acknowledge that the universe is basically an enormously complex clockwork, and if someone knew all the variables then they could most likely predict with certainty human behaviour. Also that no one can control their genes or upbringing, AND that our possible choices are constrained.

BUT STILL!

Let us agree that no one can predict an individuals actions, I would never have been able to predict my current life even ten years ago. This is a limitation of not being omniscient sure.

And also I definitely feel that in my culturally and biologically constrained way I do have volition, it probably is basically an illusion but lacking omniscience what choice do I have?

[eschereal]

@Pjen

You need to read Searle’s Chinese Room argument to understand why computer intelligence is different from consciousness.

Chinese - Wikipedia

There are no indications of consciousness in animal terms in any computer. They are very good with facts but lack the ability to give meaning to such facts.

Sorry, but you understanding of computer design and function and how it relates to human behavior is very poorly formed. The fundamental mechanics of calculation, be it a hyperbolic sine or a selection of breakfast cereal are not observably different. My point (which has absolutely nothing to do with consciousness) is that our behavior is governed by calculation based on whatever dynamics are in play. In short, it is effectively the same as a ridiculously complex computer, the extent of the complexity is simply beyond our ability to perceive. We have a combination of neurological and biochemical processes driving our actions and choices, our consciousness is a rather insignificant participant.

[QUOTE=Trinopus]
I don’t see any point to these definitions, either. The words already have definitions in other fields, including moral philosophy.

If I’m not really the cause of an action, then I don’t have any “accountability” in the standard moral sense. This is starting to feel like Aristotelian language.)
[/QUOTE]

I am not convinced that “accountability” or “responsibility” really matter much here. The entire point of the justice system is behavior modification, including the notion of deterrence. Behavior modification (getting difficult people to act reasonably) is a matter of ingraining in miscreants behavior patterns that are socially acceptable, by means of negative reinforcement (punishment). Which is to say, in terms of “free will”, corrections is about diminishing it (trying to reprogram people to not be jerks or thugs).

Realistically, the justice system as we know it is pretty ineffective in achieving its apparent goals not because of any “free will” problem or lack of accountability but because the dynamics of behavior modification are not being appropriately applied (negative reinforcement only works in an immediate frame of reference, the effectiveness of punishment drops off precipitously as it becomes separated from the related action).

So this bluster about “accountability” is just about meaningless in any practical sense, most especially if its application is not absolutely consistent, which seems to be what we always see.

[Pjen]

@eschereal

Sorry, but you understanding of computer design and function and how it relates to human behavior is very poorly formed. The fundamental mechanics of calculation, be it a hyperbolic sine or a selection of breakfast cereal are not observably different. My point (which has absolutely nothing to do with consciousness) is that our behavior is governed by calculation based on whatever dynamics are in play. In short, it is effectively the same as a ridiculously complex computer, the extent of the complexity is simply beyond our ability to perceive. We have a combination of neurological and biochemical processes driving our actions and choices, our consciousness is a rather insignificant participant.

Well, I have only studied such things at Undergraduate level during the rise of AI in the seventies and eighties, and have only bothered to read every important paper from Cognitive Psychology and various facets of AI research since.

I do agree with you that underlying brain function will in many ways be analogous to machine decision making. I also agree that brains and computers are In/determined machines (either determined or random, not affected by anything non-material as we currently understand it.)

However, humans have experiences that machines seem to lack, and machines are good with data but cannot use meaning in the way that animals and humans can.

Do you know of the Chinese Room- what do you make of Searle’s arguments.

[Pjen]

@Trinopus

Shrug. These are just alternative terms and phrases for the two basic viewpoints of the debate.

I don’t care all that much if you call me a Responsibilitst or Libertarian or a Free Willite or Hegelian or whatever. I just don’t see any point to it. I avow volition, so that’s the camp I’m in.

So you avow Free Will in the same manner that a Christian believes in God. You have no interest in trying to understand how your “Free Will” fits in with the rest of our understanding of the Universe- like God it is just a Given supported merely by your deep belief.

[Pjen]

@grude

Please note I do not believe in the religious definition of free will, or supernatural.

I am also totally uninterested in the criminal punishment aspect, or playing a blame game.

I acknowledge that the universe is basically an enormously complex clockwork, and if someone knew all the variables then they could most likely predict with certainty human behaviour. Also that no one can control their genes or upbringing, AND that our possible choices are constrained.

BUT STILL!

Let us agree that no one can predict an individuals actions, I would never have been able to predict my current life even ten years ago. This is a limitation of not being omniscient sure.

And also I definitely feel that in my culturally and biologically constrained way I do have volition, it probably is basically an illusion but lacking omniscience what choice do I have?

The words “Volition” and “Choice” beg the question of the existence of Free Will- they assume it. If you replace those words with “Drive” and “Decision” then your statement becomes value free between Libertarianism and Determinism- allowing either; as you have written it, it denies determinism that you seem to want to espouse.

From there it is possible to take up a compatibilist approach- that the Universe is Deterministic but that humans have the experience of Free Will and may be treated as such, even though that Free Will is not the prime cause of their actions.