# Free Will and Evolution



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I can't remember if we've had a thread solely devoted to free will - I know it's come up as off-topic in other threads and in the groups, but I wanted to look at it from a particular perspective.

So, do we have free will? Well, *if* we do, we must necessarily be able to account for it in evolutionary terms. The reason that we would have free will but a rock does not is that we are sentient life, and sentient life - and all its mental faculties - come into being via evolution.

There is an extremely important consequence of this that I haven't often seen addressed, and it's that free will, if it exists, _must_ exist in varying amounts. Because of the gradual nature of evolution, there cannot have been a time when free will sprang into existence, thus, in the same way that we see varying levels of consciousness and self-awareness in the animal kingdom, it should be the case that free will exists to varying degrees. We might also reasonably assume that humans have more free will than mice, but less free will than some other advanced species elsewhere in the universe.

If free will does exist, I suppose it must be some facet of consciousness that is not tethered to our unconscious thought processes. I find the concept incoherent though, and so subscribe to determinism and do away with free will all together. Either way, we'd need a radical rethinking of our social morality - at the moment, we talk in terms of absolute free will except in the case of mental illness, but with either no free will or a reduced free will, we function quite differently. I know that Dan Dennett has a book called _Freedom Evolves_ - it's on my shelf but I haven't read it yet.

*I'm specifically interested in the evolutionary side of this question. So if you feel inclined to humour me, please tell me how the evolutionary argument impacts your perception of free will, or your perception of animals' free will. I'm hoping for this not to become a generalised "do we have free will?" free for all, though I'm sure some of those arguments will have to be made.* :tiphat:


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

I don't see why everything caused by evolution has to come about gradually. Also: "free will" is pretty vague. We use the term in different ways. Free will in the clinical sense ("mentally ill people don't have free will") is not necessarily the same as free will in a biological sense, or subjective sense.

For myself, I tend to think that free will, in the end, is just a feeling we have when doing stuff.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

It's pretty clear from your statements that I don't know how you are defining the term 'free will'. So do it.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Webernite said:


> I don't see why everything caused by evolution has to come about gradually. Also: "free will" is pretty vague. We use the term in different ways. Free will in the clinical sense ("mentally ill people don't have free will") is not necessarily the same as free will in a biological sense, or subjective sense.


Well it depends what we're talking about. If we're talking about a genetic disorder, of course that's only going to require a single mutation in a single generation, and, given the right circumstances, it may be selected for if it's extremely beneficial. But it's highly unlikely (maybe impossible?) that something as complex as free will would have to be would, first, be created in a single mutation or handful of mutations (you're instead looking at a whole collection of mutations that interact with each other over a long period of time), and, second, that it would be immediately selected for and spread throughout the species. Free will would have to be a highly developed mental faculty, and, as far as I know, no one-generation mutation could result in a completely new complex brain structure.

I also don't see why there should be a distinction between free will in a clinical sense and in a biological sense. I'm inclined to think that mentally ill people have similar levels of free will to the rest of us (not much, if any), but their particular brain activity makes their lack of free will more pronounced because it is at odds with human culture.



Hilltroll72 said:


> It's pretty clear from your statements that I don't know how you are defining the term 'free will'. So do it.


Therein lies a huge problem, because I don't see much consistent definition in things I read about free will. I'd be interested to hear if _you_ think we have free will, how _you_ define it, and if/how that definition is affected by an evolutionary perspective.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

The only official definition of 'free will' that is even sort of clear to me is the one denied by Calvinism, and that has to do with predestination, a remarkably unappealing concept.

In evolutionary terms, I consider free will as a rather awkward term signifying actions/reactions that are not 'hardwired', or ingrained prejudices. So you see, I am more comfortable specifying things that are _not_ free will than in attempting to define the term.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Polednice said:


> So, do we have free will? Well, *if* we do, we must necessarily be able to account for it in evolutionary terms.


I'm not sure if you mean that free will must be an adaptation (i.e. it was selected for). I assume you don't, but if so, not all physical mechanisms are adaptive but rather some "came along for the ride with other adaptations". You probably just mean that free will came about through a long series of modifications to the genome and environment.



Polednice said:


> There is an extremely important consequence of this that I haven't often seen addressed, and it's that free will, if it exists, _must_ exist in varying amounts.


This may be true but not necessarily. For example, there is some thought that consciousness arises when neural circuitry reaches a certain level of complexity. Before that consciousness does not exist, but at that complexity point, it does. If free will comes about in a similar manner, it may be a digital phenomenon (either on or off).



Polednice said:


> If free will does exist, I suppose it must be some facet of consciousness that is not tethered to our unconscious thought processes. I find the concept incoherent though, and so subscribe to determinism and do away with free will all together.


There are a couple of reasons why I do not believe in free will, but I do not believe in determinism (other than a very technical quantum mechanical version which is NOT what most people would call determinism). We know that physical processes are not strictly determined (i.e. decay of radioactive atoms). The world is clearly not deterministic at the micro-level. The question becomes do macro-level phenomena act in a _very nearly_ deterministic way due to the statistical nature of the large number of particles involved. I would guess that the answer is almost but not truly deterministic.



Polednice said:


> I know that Dan Dennett has a book called _Freedom Evolves_ - it's on my shelf but I haven't read it yet.


I was disappointed with Dennett's book. I have read almost everything he has written and enjoyed the others quite a bit. He argues that free will does evolve. He spends considerable time discussing John Conway's _Life_ (a cellular automaton that uses a two-dimensional matrix of cells, an initial configuration of states, and a simple definition to evolve from one state to the next. The game is clearly deterministic, but somehow Dennett believes that we can use _Life_ to understand how what appears to be a deterministic system actually can evolve free will. Overall, I did not buy his argument.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

One definition of free will is - behavior that violates the fundamental interactions between particles and fields (i.e. the basic constituents of physical reality). I would speak of such violations as supernatural phenomena. If your behavior does not violate these interactions, in what sense are you adding something to what subatomic particles are doing? I would not consider that free will.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

mmsbls said:


> I'm not sure if you mean that free will must be an adaptation (i.e. it was selected for). I assume you don't, but if so, not all physical mechanisms are adaptive but rather some "came along for the ride with other adaptations". You probably just mean that free will came about through a long series of modifications to the genome and environment.


Yes, I meant that it would have come about through a long series of modifications. It may have been a by-product rather than adaptive in its own right - a little like music. 



mmsbls said:


> This may be true but not necessarily. For example, there is some thought that consciousness arises when neural circuitry reaches a certain level of complexity. Before that consciousness does not exist, but at that complexity point, it does. If free will comes about in a similar manner, it may be a digital phenomenon (either on or off).


That's a very interesting idea. Could you direct me to some good books/articles that discuss consciousness in that way?



mmsbls said:


> I was disappointed with Dennett's book. I have read almost everything he has written and enjoyed the others quite a bit. He argues that free will does evolve. He spends considerable time discussing John Conway's _Life_ (a cellular automaton that uses a two-dimensional matrix of cells, an initial configuration of states, and a simple definition to evolve from one state to the next. The game is clearly deterministic, but somehow Dennett believes that we can use _Life_ to understand how what appears to be a deterministic system actually can evolve free will. Overall, I did not buy his argument.


Although I haven't read his book yet, I have watched a couple of hours' worth of talks he gave on it, and I found it all rather confusing and unappealing. His biggest thing (from my viewing) seemed to be a focus on "evitability" (as opposed to inevitability), but I think that's a poor thing to use as a definition of free will. If I remember rightly, I think he does reject more traditional versions of free will, but I don't think the thing he presents really ought to be given the same label.


----------



## jttoft (Apr 23, 2012)

You're really in the philosophical mindset today, aren't you Polednice? 

In answer to your "question", I think it is necessary to define _free will_ before considering whether it exists.
I see two possible definitions: (1) free will as opposed to predetermined fate, and (2) free will as opposed to instinct.
If we use the first definition, free will, if it exists, would apply to all Animalia. If we use the second, it would only apply to the higher members.

I find the concept of predetermined fate ludicrous, and thus, in the the sense of the first definition, believe that all animals have free will. In the case of mice, insects and other lower animals, their free will is, of course, guided by instinct, but it is still free in the sense that they act independently and do not follow a predetermined fate.
If we follow the second definition, only humans and other apes* could be said to have free will.
I would argue that conscious free will (as I believe we humans possess) is a "higher" form of free will than an insect's instinctive free will. I agree with your very reasonable conclusion that free will must exist in varying amounts (because of the nature of evolution), if it exists at all, and I think the amount of free will in an animal has a direct correlation with its intelligence: the higher intelligence, the more free will.

In fact, if we assume the position that free will does not exist, this discussion is useless, seeing as everything we say has already been decided, leaving this discussion with only one possible outcome.

* And possibly other higher animals - I am not a biologist.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

re _jttoft_'s post -

Your understanding of the term is much closer to mine than that of _mmsbls_ and _poley_, who seem to have 'scienced' themselves right off the planet. Particles, me ****.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

jttoft said:


> In answer to your "question", I think it is necessary to define _free will_ before considering whether it exists.
> I see two possible definitions: (1) free will as opposed to predetermined fate, and (2) free will as opposed to instinct.
> If we use the first definition, free will, if it exists, would apply to all Animalia. If we use the second, it would only apply to the higher members.


I think we need some further definition here. In terms of "predetermined fate", I would agree it's ridiculous that our paths should be _pre-determined_ in the sense that they are mapped out before they happen. However, there is a related concept often used to define free will that goes "could have done otherwise". You have to ask the question, "given the exact same circumstances - the same life history, the same experiences, the same chemical balances in my body, the same brain structure, the same mood that day - could I have acted differently?" I personally don't think so - I think our actions are completely determined by our biology at the moment in time that we "make" a "decision", hence why I don't think free will exists at all (with that definition).

EDIT: Would it be fair to characterise your definition of free will as the capacity to reason?


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

After reading jtoft's I wished to write a comment but Polednice has beaten me to the gist of it.

Really, I dont see much of a difference between the two definitions of 'free will' you mentioned. Assuming as you do that the majority of organisms follow instincts, it follows that they would react in a certain *predictable* way to known stimuli.

If an outcome can be predicted, with known conditions, to certainty, then the conditions may also be altered to produce a determined outcome.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Polednice said:


> However, there is a related concept often used to define free will that goes "could have done otherwise". You have to ask the question, "given the exact same circumstances - the same life history, the same experiences, the same chemical balances in my body, the same brain structure, the same mood that day - could I have acted differently?" I personally don't think so - I think our actions are completely determined by our biology at the moment in time that we "make" a "decision", hence why I don't think free will exists at all (with that definition).


The "could have done otherwise" definition is probably the most used definition that I know. I generally agree with your assessment with the exception that I mentioned. We are not precisely determined, but I'm not sure the collapse of a micro-level quantum state could give rise to two clearly different behaviors. Note that if random quantum phenomena could give rise to differing behavior given the same physical state, then those behaviors would still not be due to free will - they would be due to random phenomena.

The general question is what would give rise to free will? What is the mechanism? Where does it come from? As far as I can tell, the only mechanism would be supernatural (i.e. some process that does not obey natural laws). Natural laws are deterministic except where they involve randomness. There seems to be no room for free will. One reason for me being skeptical about free will is that I don't believe in supernatural phenomena. Does anyone have a mechanism for free will that is not supernatural?

If free will exists and it is based on supernatural phenomena, then of course, evolution would presumably not have anything to do with free will.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Well, let's not forget that free will is sometimes defined as simply "doing what you want to do" - i.e. lack of restraint. On this definition, it's not incompatible with determinism.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Webernite said:


> Well, let's not forget that free will is sometimes defined as simply "doing what you want to do" - i.e. lack of restraint. On this definition, it's not incompatible with determinism.


That's more correctly "freedom" than "free will" surely?


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

I suppose - although if I remember correctly, David Hume talked about free will that way, so I'm in good company.


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

I would argue that, at the macroscopic level, free will involves the understanding of cause and effect--while realizing that, at the subatomic level, cause and effect don't really mean anything when it comes to subjects such as radioactive decay.

Creatures that have free will understand cause and effect, and creatures that don't understand cause and effect don't have it. But there's a continuum between those two extremes. What we think free will is--or, on the other hand, what we think intelligence is, or even what we think consciousness is, or what pleasure-and-reward versus pain-and-punishment is--is basically an understanding of cause and effect. The understanding of cause and effect primarily occurs because of memory, and the ability it gives an organism to learn from past mistakes. Memory, and the extent to which any given organism has it, is dependent upon the complexity of the nervous system.

You can trick certain insects into doing a single task, with a futile objective, over and over again. They don't remember what happened the last time, so they do the same thing again--even if they get punished for it. This doesn't happen, though, with a large variety of unrelated organisms, including some of the higher arthropods, many of the higher molluscs, arguably some of the annelid worms, arguably some of the echinoderms (starfish and relatives), and certainly most (if not actually all) of the vertebrates. But probably not in the case of jellyfish, roundworms, and flatworms, and almost certainly not in the case of sponges--their nervous systems are too rudimentary. 

So if I'm right that free will is an understanding of cause and effect (as perceived at the macroscopic level), and that understanding of cause and effect depends on memory, and that memory depends on the complexity of the nervous system, free will has evolved separately on a number of occasions.

I'm sure everybody is thoroughly bored by now, but the OP did specify that the evolution of free will was meant to be discussed, so this is my take on the the subject.


----------



## jttoft (Apr 23, 2012)

Polednice said:


> I think we need some further definition here. In terms of "predetermined fate", I would agree it's ridiculous that our paths should be _pre-determined_ in the sense that they are mapped out before they happen. However, there is a related concept often used to define free will that goes "could have done otherwise". You have to ask the question, "given the exact same circumstances - the same life history, the same experiences, the same chemical balances in my body, the same brain structure, the same mood that day - could I have acted differently?" I personally don't think so - I think our actions are completely determined by our biology at the moment in time that we "make" a "decision", hence why I don't think free will exists at all (with that definition).


- Yes, I agree that further definition might be a good idea. The one you mention belongs under my second definition and is a more precise definition of free will in that sense. I should mention that I did not mean to imply that my two definitions were the _only_ two.
The concepts of predetermined fate and determinism are different only in theory. In practice, they both mean that there is only one possible outcome of everything. The difference between them is that a predetermined fate is not necessarily deterministic, if you take _predetermined_ to mean _planned by someone/something_ (God, etc.). But a deterministic world will always be predetermined, though only one step at a time and not necessarily by a sentient being.

Not that it is a very good argument against determinism, but if you accept that the world is deterministic and that free will does not exist, then I think everything becomes a little boring: Beethoven never had a choice in composing his symphonies, that football match could only have that outcome, only that president could have been elected, etc.



> EDIT: Would it be fair to characterise your definition of free will as the capacity to reason?


- In the second definition, yes - to some extent. The capacity to reason, I think, is a more general ability than it is to have free will. For instance, assessing the ripeness of a number of fruits or finding the best route to a destination has to do with one's ability to reason, but has nothing to do with free will.



emiellucifuge said:


> Really, I dont see much of a difference between the two definitions of 'free will' you mentioned. Assuming as you do that the majority of organisms follow instincts, it follows that they would react in a certain predictable way to known stimuli.


- I think the differences are huge. Definition two is included in definition one and is a more narrow definition, meaning that free will exists only in conscious beings capable of making conscious choices. In the first definition free will merely means that which is not predetermined and thus includes even the most basic of instincts.
My understanding of the term is probably closer to the second definition. At least, I think the conscious free will (as in definition two) is a "higher" form of free will than instinctive free will (as in definition one).



> The general question is what would give rise to free will? What is the mechanism? Where does it come from? As far as I can tell, the only mechanism would be supernatural (i.e. some process that does not obey natural laws). Natural laws are deterministic except where they involve randomness. There seems to be no room for free will.


- I assume you mean physical/scientific law (the laws of nature) instead of natural law in the philosophical/moral sense.
I think it is a flawed logic to conclude that free will must either be supernatural or not exist at all because the laws of nature are deterministic. We are talking about the brain (primarily the human mind), and our brain definitely obeys the laws of nature, but I don't think it then follows that our brain cannot make free decisions. The laws of nature (relativity, Newton's laws of motion, etc.) are something different entirely and does not have anything to do with the specific processes going on in the brain.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding your argument, because I really don't see what one has to do with the other.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Fsharpmajor said:


> I would argue that, at the macroscopic level, free will involves the understanding of cause and effect--while realizing that, at the subatomic level, cause and effect don't really mean anything when it comes to subjects such as radioactive decay.


I found this and your explanation of it quite interesting. I may be simplifying both of you here, but it sounded like another perspective on Dan Dennett's take on evolved free will. He has a thing about evolving the ability to avoid the "inevitable", and I think recognising cause and effect is essentially a tool that allows us a rational control over our environment. I can certainly accept that this _exists_, whether or not I'd call it "free will", I don't know. Either way, it's not incompatible with the determinism I believe in - indeed, Dan Dennett is a compatibilist.



jttoft said:


> Not that it is a very good argument against determinism, but if you accept that the world is deterministic and that free will does not exist, then I think everything becomes a little boring: Beethoven never had a choice in composing his symphonies, that football match could only have that outcome, only that president could have been elected, etc.


I don't agree with your aesthetic judgement there! I think it's similar to the bad arguments people put forward that the world is chaos without a deity. We don't need the seeming magic of free will to appreciate things better. The fact is that even though we are determinist machines (in my vision of reality), _we_ don't and probably can't know what will happen in the future, so Beethoven and football still maintain their wonderful mystery, even though there was no alternative that could have happened.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

jttoft said:


> - I assume you mean physical/scientific law (the laws of nature) instead of natural law in the philosophical/moral sense.
> I think it is a flawed logic to conclude that free will must either be supernatural or not exist at all because the laws of nature are deterministic. We are talking about the brain (primarily the human mind), and our brain definitely obeys the laws of nature, but I don't think it then follows that our brain cannot make free decisions. The laws of nature (relativity, Newton's laws of motion, etc.) are something different entirely and does not have anything to do with the specific processes going on in the brain.
> Perhaps I am misunderstanding your argument, because I really don't see what one has to do with the other.


I do mean physical/scientific laws. Technically the laws are not deterministic, but I don't think it changes any argument about free will.

It's true that gravity and the nuclear forces have little to do with brain activity, but the electromagnetic force determines all interaction between the atoms and molecules. The three dimensional structure of macromolecules and their electro-negativity is determined by the electromagnetic force. These essentially determine the interactions between neurotransmitters and neurons. The action potential which leads to neurons firing is also determined by the electromagnetic force. All brain activity is a function of the electromagnetic force. I think natural laws have _everything_ to do with brain processes.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

I'd basically agree with Fsharpmajor. We are, of course, bound to as much as is biologically possible, but within those constraints I feel we do have the ability to have "free will".


----------



## jttoft (Apr 23, 2012)

Polednice said:


> I don't agree with your aesthetic judgement there! I think it's similar to the bad arguments people put forward that the world is chaos without a deity. We don't need the seeming magic of free will to appreciate things better. The fact is that even though we are determinist machines (in my vision of reality), _we_ don't and probably can't know what will happen in the future, so Beethoven and football still maintain their wonderful mystery, even though there was no alternative that could have happened.


- My reflection on determinism was not at all intended as an argument for the existence of free will - it was simply a personal opinion. An aesthetic judgment about something (like your example of chaos without a deity) is merely that and has no relevance to the actual arguments for/against the existence of any phenomena.



mmsbls said:


> I do mean physical/scientific laws. Technically the laws are not deterministic, but I don't think it changes any argument about free will.
> 
> It's true that gravity and the nuclear forces have little to do with brain activity, but the electromagnetic force determines all interaction between the atoms and molecules. The three dimensional structure of macromolecules and their electro-negativity is determined by the electromagnetic force. These essentially determine the interactions between neurotransmitters and neurons. The action potential which leads to neurons firing is also determined by the electromagnetic force. All brain activity is a function of the electromagnetic force. I think natural laws have everything to do with brain processes.


- I can follow your argument, and it is quite compelling. Unfortunately, it is beyond my knowledge of physics, so I can't present a counter-argument, nor assess whether you are right in your argument. If you are indeed right about this, I would agree that brain processes definitely has a lot to do with the electromagnetic force.
Even though my understanding of the specifics of your argument is limited, it is the best I have yet seen against the existence of free will. Well done.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

jttoft said:


> [...]
> - I can follow your argument, and it is quite compelling. Unfortunately, it is beyond my knowledge of physics, so I can't present a counter-argument, nor assess whether you are right in your argument. If you are indeed right about this, I would agree that brain processes definitely has a lot to do with the electromagnetic force.
> Even though my understanding of the specifics of your argument is limited, it is the best I have yet seen against the existence of free will. Well done.


I too think that _mmsbls_ is doing well, in part based on your acceptance of his story.

For him · · · · :clap:


----------



## Igneous01 (Jan 27, 2011)

free will is just a large finite state machine, linked to millions of different conditions and each attached with a percentage value of being selected.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> I too think that _mmsbls_ is doing well, in part based on your acceptance of his story.


I don't think it's a question of "doing well". I'm much, much more interested in knowing the answer than "doing well". Free will either exists or not (or possibly something exists that we would consider "sort of" free will). I only know of 4 general reasons to believe or not believe in free will.

1) Religion/God indicates that free will should exist.
2) Our experience strongly suggests free will exists (i.e. we feel that we have free will).
3) A more detailed, technical argument like the one I posted suggesting that everything that happens is a direct result of natural laws, and therefore, there is no place for free will.
4) A wonderful experiment performed by Benjamin Libet showing that signals in motor neurons are sent to muscles before we are conscious of "deciding" to move. This suggests that our actions are not initiated by our consciousness, and therefore, likely are not based on free will.

I discount #1 because I have never seen evidence for supernatural phenomena. #2 is actually quite compelling. #3 probably has the strongest effect on me since I'm a physical scientist. #4 is the only real evidence I'm aware of that pertains to the issue. Overall, *for me*, #'s 3 and 4 override #2.

My problems in believing in free will are 1) why is the conclusion in #4 unwarranted and 2) how does free will get around the argument in #3 (i.e. what possible mechanism could there be that would result in free will)? On the other hand, a good model of consciousness must explain why we _feel_ that we have free will.

I realize that these posts are pushing the OP's request that the thread not include generalized arguments about the existence of free will. Maybe this could be considered a very specific argument. Sorry if that's a problem.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Polednice said:


> Well it depends what we're talking about.


When you start out like that, whatever follows is moot. You've been asked not to waffle. Your opening and the OP are both riddled with waffling.

If you put forth a clear definition, even if it is 'just yours' there will a clear point of view for those interested to which the can then react.

The evolutionary aspect? (The first human, include neanderthals and earlier species, please) who realized that by applying themselves to something they could alter, change or in some way make circumstances different, and then concluded they did not have to accept whatever the objective of that change was as an immutable given.

The first hand-shaped object would be the 'evidence' in Paleontology. A 40,000 year-old flute has been found, the Lescaux cave murals are another example. Man willfully shaping or at least thinking to try to alter circumstance or the outcome of something. I'm sure the beginnings were millennia earlier, and no record of a 'starting point' will ever be found.

It is easy enough to imagine that it started with the first formulated question.

Doug Adams, in his Hitchiker trilogy (actually a quartet summed the entire progress of civilization up in three stages thusly:

"How do we eat?"
"Why do we eat?"
"Where shall we have lunch?"


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

mmsbls said:


> On the other hand, a good model of consciousness must explain why we _feel_ that we have free will.


That's an important point, and something I've considered, but I can't conceive of a consciousness that _doesn't_ maintain an illusion of free will, can you? I think it's a fundamental aspect of higher levels of self-awareness to feel as though we are in complete control of our decisions. The alternative would be for our consciousness to be an experience that's "just along for the ride" with whatever else our determinist biological machines are doing - in that scenario, consciousness would be a costly and superfluous ability.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

As long as you believe that your #4 has anything to do with the question, you are blocked from an understanding. My previous post was a suggestion that you were conducting an experiment in sophistry; now I'm thinking maybe not.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> As long as you believe that your #4 has anything to do with the question, you are blocked from an understanding. My previous post was a suggestion that you were conducting an experiment in sophistry; now I'm thinking maybe not.


Please enlighten me. I crave understanding. I would just say that many philosophers and neuroscientists on both sides of the issue believe that experiment has a lot to do with free will. They could be wrong.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Polednice said:


> That's an important point, and something I've considered, but I can't conceive of a consciousness that _doesn't_ maintain an illusion of free will, can you? I think it's a fundamental aspect of higher levels of self-awareness to feel as though we are in complete control of our decisions. The alternative would be for our consciousness to be an experience that's "just along for the ride" with whatever else our determinist biological machines are doing - in that scenario, consciousness would be a costly and superfluous ability.


I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "just along for the ride". There are many neuroscientists who believe that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of other brain activity. Consciousness is not fundamental to brain activity but a byproduct of the complexity of neural processing. Essentially unconscious brain processes due their processing and somehow create a "sense of consciousness" whatever that actually is. They would agree with "just along for the ride". Actually, I think the epiphenomenon description is the most likely one I have heard.

So I do agree with the first part of your post - I think any consciousness would feel as though it has free will. But I also believe it's "just along for the ride". Consciousness would be superfluous, but I'm not sure it's costly. maybe it is, but maybe there's no getting around that part.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Premeditated murder. An act of free will, instinct, or predetermined fate? What I'm getting at is any act that is preceded by a significant amount of thought/planning involves a degree of free will. No? But in light of Poley's comments, there are other impulses driving us which prevent us from completely being in control. But that's not much of a defense for a premeditated heinous act.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

mmsbls said:


> I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "just along for the ride". There are many neuroscientists who believe that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of other brain activity. Consciousness is not fundamental to brain activity but a byproduct of the complexity of neural processing. Essentially unconscious brain processes due their processing and somehow create a "sense of consciousness" whatever that actually is. They would agree with "just along for the ride". Actually, I think the epiphenomenon description is the most likely one I have heard.
> 
> So I do agree with the first part of your post - I think any consciousness would feel as though it has free will. But I also believe it's "just along for the ride". Consciousness would be superfluous, but I'm not sure it's costly. maybe it is, but maybe there's no getting around that part.


Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. I do agree that consciousness _is_ just along for the ride as an epiphenomenon, but I can't conceive of a consciousness that is _self-aware_ of itself as epiphenomenon, you see what I mean? If we were innately aware that our consciousness was just along for the ride - which I think is equivalent to being innately aware that we have no free will - then consciousness would be useless and probably quite torturous!

But then, I'm not totally sure of that. Well, I think it's reasonable to claim that consciousness arises from other brain activity, but unlike other by-products (such as, potentially, music), which are irrelevant to survival, consciousness as an epiphenomenon would surely have been an extremely adaptive trait, wouldn't it? I don't know where I'm going with that - I'm ridiculously tired! Maybe you can help push me.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

starthrower said:


> Premeditated murder. An act of free will, instinct, or predetermined fate? What I'm getting at is any act that is preceded by a significant amount of thought/planning involves a degree of free will. No? But in light of Poley's comments, there are other impulses driving us which prevent us from completely being in control. But that's not much of a defense for a premeditated heinous act.


Although I don't believe in free will, and I don't believe that the murderer could have chosen otherwise - their actions having been caused by an extremely complex interaction of biology, environment, and life experience - I don't think that abdicates us of responsibility.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

mmsbls said:


> Please enlighten me. I crave understanding. I would just say that many philosophers and neuroscientists on both sides of the issue believe that experiment has a lot to do with free will. They could be wrong.


The principle/phenomenon/whateveritis you describe in your #4 is known in non-scientific terminology as 'reflex'. Our species would not have come into existence without it. Along with the genetically 'hard-wired' ones, we all know of learned reflexes. Anyone who has driven a car for awhile is familiar with one involving the right leg. If you've driven a car with manual shift, you know of one involving the left leg. Reflex messages do exactly what you describe - the action is _followed_ by conscious awareness of it.

Let's examine another kind of situation. You are taking a multiple choice test using your computer. You choose option B. Did you click on B involuntarily?

(This is probably out of your bailiwick) Another situation. You were deer hunting, from a stand. A deer walks into view; you raise your rifle and get a sight picture in the scope, but see that the deer is a spikehorn, and hunting regulations require that the rack must have at least four points at least an inch long. At what point have you already pulled the trigger?

You are a smart guy, _mmsbls_, so I'm sure that you catch my drift. Where am I going wrong?


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Polednice said:


> But then, I'm not totally sure of that. Well, I think it's reasonable to claim that consciousness arises from other brain activity, but unlike other by-products (such as, potentially, music), which are irrelevant to survival, consciousness as an epiphenomenon would surely have been an extremely adaptive trait, wouldn't it? I don't know where I'm going with that - I'm ridiculously tired! Maybe you can help push me.


OK, ignore the confused last part. In thinking about this, and whether or not consciousness must _necessarily_ feature an illusory sense of free will, there's an important question to ponder: is there an essential difference between having a consciousness like a human and _believing_ that you _don't_ have free will, and having some other kind of consciousness where the concept of free will is alien?

My initial thought is that despite my belief that I do not have free will, I cannot help but behave as though I do. In order to function, I can't - as some conscious, non-free willed animal might - let my body do the work and watch the show. I have to _think_ it, even if I think it unconsciously before consciously! My brain is tangled.  I'll need a while to think about this!


----------



## Chrythes (Oct 13, 2011)

A question about the Libet type experiments - isn't there a very small delay before our decision to move and the actual movement? What I mean is that in this case the experiments don't show that the decision to move is made before we actually do it, but that there might be a small delay between our cognitive actions (e.g deciding to move a limb) and motor actions. 
It's interesting because as far as I understand in these experiments they refer to the time of our decision making as the same time when we press the button.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Hilltroll72 said:


> The principle/phenomenon/whateveritis you describe in your #4 is known in non-scientific terminology as 'reflex'. Our species would not have come into existence without it. Along with the genetically 'hard-wired' ones, we all know of learned reflexes. Anyone who has driven a car for awhile is familiar with one involving the right leg. If you've driven a car with manual shift, you know of one involving the left leg. Reflex messages do exactly what you describe - the action is _followed_ by conscious awareness of it.


Oh Hilltroll, I think such a fundamental misunderstanding of the research is quite sweet coming from you. There, there, old man.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Polednice said:


> Oh Hilltroll, I think such a fundamental misunderstanding of the research is quite sweet coming from you. There, there, old man.


And of course I, not being provided with corrections for my purported misunderstandings, suspect that your understanding of the research results is faulty. And I appreciate your sympathy, whippersnapper.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

starthrower said:


> Premeditated murder. An act of free will, instinct, or predetermined fate? What I'm getting at is any act that is preceded by a significant amount of thought/planning involves a degree of free will. No? But in light of Poley's comments, there are other impulses driving us which prevent us from completely being in control. But that's not much of a defense for a premeditated heinous act.


The fact that we (maybe) don't have free will is an explanation but not a defense.



Polednice said:


> Although I don't believe in free will, and I don't believe that the murderer could have chosen otherwise - their actions having been caused by an extremely complex interaction of biology, environment, and life experience - I don't think that abdicates us of responsibility.


If we don't have free will, we really can't be responsible. Nevertheless, that doesn't mean that society should ignore the heinous acts. How society responds obviously will affect the individual who committed the crime. Removing that individual from society may be a very good thing. Further, going to jail may be an experience that modifies the criminal's brain causing it to be less likely to commit more crimes (rehabilitation). Whether we have free will or not, society needs to understand the criminal mind much better to know when it is appropriate to incarcerate people, how long they should stay in jail, what jail conditions should be, and when, if ever, parole is appropriate.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

mmsbls said:


> If we don't have free will, we really can't be responsible. Nevertheless, that doesn't mean that society should ignore the heinous acts. How society responds obviously will affect the individual who committed the crime. Removing that individual from society may be a very good thing. Further, going to jail may be an experience that modifies the criminal's brain causing it to be less likely to commit more crimes (rehabilitation). Whether we have free will or not, society needs to understand the criminal mind much better to know when it is appropriate to incarcerate people, how long they should stay in jail, what jail conditions should be, and when, if ever, parole is appropriate.


I agree with everything you said - my use of the word "responsibility" was misleading short-hand for a more complicated idea that I wasn't going to get directly into and don't have a short word for. In brief, I think it is important that although we cannot have Absolute responsibility without Absolute free will, it is probably beneficial to deliberately maintain the _illusion_ of responsibility and free will, as talking in terms of being able to do right and wrong is potentially a powerful input variable that prepares people to behave morally.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

The Libet experiments done in the 1970's (I think) are surprisingly simple, yet to my knowledge they have not been repeated (I hope I'm wrong, but I've never read anything about other such experiments). The basic idea is this.

Conscious volition presumably involves a sequence of events that occur at particular times:
1) Conscious decision to act (i.e. move a particular muscle) [call that Tcd for conscious decision time)
2) The decision part of the brain must signal the motor neuron (neuron that is connected to the muscle) and activate it to fire 3) The signal must travel the length of the motor neuron to the muscle (in the experiment, a finger was moved)
4) The muscle will move [call that Tm for movement time]

Neuron activation times are well understood. Also the time it takes for the signal to travel down the particular motor neuron used in the experiment was well known. Let's call the duration of the activation time plus the signal travel time T(signal duration).

If the temporal order above is correct, one would expect that Tm - Td > T(signal duration). In other words the time between the decision and the muscle movement must be greater than the time it takes to activate the motor neuron plus the time it takes for the signal to travel to the muscle. If Tm -Td < T(signal duration), it would appear that the true decision time must be earlier than the conscious decision time.

In fact the experiments showed that Tm -Td < T(signal duration). The conclusion seems to be that our actual decisions are made in the unconscious brain and not in consciousness. I have read many discussions of these experiments, and not everyone agrees that free will, therefore, does not exist. However, no one seemed to question the experimental procedure or results. In other words people believed that the experiment was conducted properly with valid results. I'm sure some are wondering how the conscious decision time was measured. There was an ingenious (and simple) way to measure that, and again, reviewers seemed to accept this method. Basically people watched a high precision clock and reported when they made their decision.

A final interesting conclusion made by Libet was that we apparently do not have free will, but we might have "free won't". The decision to act seems to occur before we consciously become aware of it. However, it might be possible to prevent the motor neuron from firing after the neuron is activated. So the unconscious mind decides to move the finger. It activates the motor neuron. The conscious mind "decides" not to act and stop the neuron from completing the process to fire. We have consciously prevented the proposed action. So we can't freely decide what to do, but we maybe can freely decide what not to do. There does not seem to be evidence that we can consciously prevent the motor neuron from firing (as far as I know).


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Ooh, I like that story. If one's mind is fortuitously twisted, there is a fair amount of humor there. Mine is, so there is. I detect similarities to conclusions arrived at by ancient and medieval philosophers; not as admirable but just as jumpy.


----------



## Chrythes (Oct 13, 2011)

Very interesting mmslbs. And only now it occurred to me how much sense this - "There does not seem to be evidence that we can consciously prevent the motor neuron from firing " statement makes. 
How does the "free won't" work on a neural level? What part of the brain would be activated during that process (I'm guessing that the frontal lobe, but when making a movement does the signal coming from the primary motor cortex goes through the frontal lobe as well?)?


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Chrythes said:


> Very interesting mmslbs. And only now it occurred to me how much sense this - "There does not seem to be evidence that we can consciously prevent the motor neuron from firing " statement makes.
> How does the "free won't" work on a neural level? What part of the brain would be activated during that process (I'm guessing that the frontal lobe, but when making a movement does the signal coming from the primary motor cortex goes through the frontal lobe as well?)?


I don't remember many details of Libet's discussion, and I don't know enough about neural circuitry so I'd be guessing about possible mechanisms for "free won't".


----------



## Guest (May 15, 2012)

Just a thought on evolution. 
Is there a kind of intelligence and memory involved, there must be a plan? it can't just be haphazard it has a purpose which works some of the time and fails at other times I don't know the percentages. I have just caught the tail end of a TV doco on Orchids which was showing how this particular Orchid mimicked a certain hairy female wasp and also gave off the right scent of a female that the males found irresistible causing them to attempt a mating thus spreading the pollen to other Orchids so how does it (Orchid) get the knowledge to even attempt this?? Please excuse if I have the wrong terminology.

Here is a *similar* example:


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Andante said:


> Just a thought on evolution.
> Is there a kind of intelligence and memory involved, there must be a plan? it can't just be haphazard it has a purpose which works some of the time and fails at other times I don't know the percentages. I have just caught the tail end of a TV doco on Orchids which was showing how this particular Orchid mimicked a certain hairy female wasp and also gave off the right scent of a female that the males found irresistible causing them to attempt a mating thus spreading the pollen to other Orchids so how does it (Orchid) get the knowledge to even attempt this?? Please excuse if I have the wrong terminology.
> 
> Here is a *similar* example:
> ...


It is tempting to think of it in those terms, but that's quite similar to the faulty idea that the complexity of life requires design - superficially, it's very convincing, but it's actually not necessary. Similarly, these things don't need intelligence to arise. What you have to do (and it's difficult - I struggle with it frequently!) is try to imagine the immense time-scales involved in evolution, and multiple different, competing organisms being in a kind of arms-race that affects how they look a few hundred thousand years down the line. From very, very simple beginnings, Orchids and all other organisms would go through a tremendously long process of trial and error by mutation, and whatever works best gets selected for, and may improve slightly the next time - and the next time, the next time, the next time, the next time, until you get something so ridiculously and beautifully complex that you can hardly imagine how it came about through this step by step process! But there's really no intelligence behind it, either guiding the process or on the part of the Orchid - it's just the result of non-random selection of random mutations.


----------



## Guest (May 15, 2012)

OK, so why pick on a Bee and not the Moon or a Stone, Fish or even another Plant ?


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Andante said:


> OK, so why pick on a Bee and not the Moon or a Stone, Fish or even another Plant ?


That question went straight over my head.


----------



## Guest (May 15, 2012)

Sorry, what makes the plant use the resemblance and smell of the female Wasp as a form of attraction to enable it to spread the Pollen


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Andante said:


> Sorry, what makes the plant use the resemblance and smell of the female Wasp as a form of attraction to enable it to spread the Pollen


Well, as I'm sure you know, there are various methods used for pollination by different species - some use insects, some use animals' digestive tracts, some use wind, or a combination. The same holds for sexual behaviours amongst animals - there are various ways of having heterosexual, asexual, or hermaphroditic reproduction. What you notice, though, is that for all the species out there, there is a small, finite number of ways of going about these things, and that's because these are the optimal methods for the species in their given environments. The reason, in this case, that the resemblance and smell of a female wasp would be used is simply because that's the most effective way of ensuring pollination in this particular environment. Given a different environment, something else would have evolved. There's no foresight or planning here - it's just a gradual process where random mutations that happen to be beneficial end up getting favoured, and a mutation that would have led to a little better resemblance to a wasp, or little stronger scent, would have been more successful than the alternatives.


----------



## Guest (May 15, 2012)

Polednice said:


> The reason, in this case, that the resemblance and smell of a female wasp would be used is simply because that's the most effective way of ensuring pollination in this particular environment. Given a different environment, something else would have evolved. There's no foresight or planning here - it's just a gradual process where random mutations that happen to be beneficial end up getting favoured, and a mutation that would have led to a little better resemblance to a wasp, or little stronger scent, would have been more successful than the alternatives.


So the plant hit on this resemblance without being able to know what it was doing I,e purely by chance….the odds are astronomical even allowing for the time involved, now don't get me wrong I am not suggesting some divine guidance just that there could be something more than pure chance involved, but then again who knows?


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

Igneous01 said:


> finite state machine


Mealy or Moore?


----------



## Chrythes (Oct 13, 2011)

Andante said:


> So the plant hit on this resemblance without being able to know what it was doing I,e purely by chance….the odds are astronomical even allowing for the time involved, now don't get me wrong I am not suggesting some divine guidance just that there could be something more than pure chance involved, but then again who knows?


They are not so astronomical considering the fact that these flowers encounter many wasps or bees each day, which actually increases their experience of a very important stimulus (pollination, without it they would die, hence the focus is mostly on how to increase the chances of being pollinated). 
It's interesting how they actually "know" how the wasp looks like, I tried searching for answers but apparently it's still not fully understood. But maybe, at first the mutated orchid having a certain structure (smaller, or very different from what we see today) might have been, by chance, visited by a male wasp and pollinated. These flowers flourished and became more dominant than the others that did not have that specific structure. 
Also it's important to note that when the male wasp visits the orchid he actually mates with her, which means he spends a lot of energy and sperm on nothing. So some males evolved the ability to distinguish between a true female wasp and a false one, imitated by the orchid. The orchids, in return might have started evolving even more complex and sophisticated luring mechanisms. 
Of course, I'm only speculating here, but it's one way to explain this mechanism without needlessly involving a creator or a designer.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Without the concept of a soul which requires religion the notion of free will is nonsensical. 

Of course Darwinian evolution is incompatible with free will; all forms of biological deterministic philosophies are mutually exclusive with free will. The fact that so many believe both is proof that humans can live with an incredibly large amount of blatant contradictions in their worldviews.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Andante said:


> So the plant hit on this resemblance without being able to know what it was doing I,e purely by chance….the odds are astronomical even allowing for the time involved, now don't get me wrong I am not suggesting some divine guidance just that there could be something more than pure chance involved, but then again who knows?


That's a common mis-step - have you actually tried to crunch the numbers? Intuitively, they're astronomical, but they're really not. Given the number of generations, mutations, and years, these things are quite reasonable. You should perhaps read up on species like some moths (I can't remember the name of the species in question - I believe there were some populations that rapidly changed from black to white and vice-versa), which change in a very short time period, and then you'll see the power _millions_ of years have on enabling significant change.

EDIT: Peppered moths.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

brianwalker said:


> Without the concept of a soul which requires religion the notion of free will is nonsensical.
> 
> Of course Darwinian evolution is incompatible with free will; all forms of biological deterministic philosophies are mutually exclusive with free will. The fact that so many believe both is proof that humans can live with an incredibly large amount of blatant contradictions in their worldviews.


Many people have believed in a dual theory of consciousness (disembodied mind plus brain) without believing in a soul so a religious soul is not necessary for free will.

The second paragraph seems to suggest that you think it's obvious (or at least relatively easy to know) that Darwinian evolution is incompatible with free will. I have read a great deal about free will and consciousness, and the only thing that seems clear to me is how little we collectively know about either topic. I don't think it's possible that anyone has a _blatant_ contradiction in their worldviews with respect to free will.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Andante said:


> So the plant hit on this resemblance without being able to know what it was doing I,e purely by chance….the odds are astronomical even allowing for the time involved, now don't get me wrong I am not suggesting some divine guidance just that there could be something more than pure chance involved, but then again who knows?


As others have pointed out, the process is _not pure_ chance. Natural selection can be a very powerful force.

An analogy using dice would be the probability that someone could roll 100 6's. If you tried to do it all at once (i.e. rolling 100 dice each time), the probability would be enormously small. But suppose every time you rolled the dice, someone else selected every 6 that was rolled and set them aside. In the first roll you might have 16 6's. Those would be set aside, and you would then roll the remaining 84 dice. After most rolls you would have an increasing number of 6's. Eventually you would have few dice left that hadn't been rolled as 6's. To get all 100 dice rolled as 6's would not take very long.

The difference between relying purely on mutations and relying on the combination of mutations and natural selection is enormous.


----------



## Guest (May 15, 2012)

Chrythes said:


> They are not so astronomical considering the fact that these flowers encounter many wasps or bees each day, which actually increases their experience of a very important stimulus (pollination, without it they would die, hence the focus is mostly on how to increase the chances of being pollinated).
> It's interesting how they actually "know" how the wasp looks like, I tried searching for answers but apparently it's still not fully understood. But maybe, at first the mutated orchid having a certain structure (smaller, or very different from what we see today) might have been, by chance, visited by a male wasp and pollinated. These flowers flourished and became more dominant than the others that did not have that specific structure.
> Also it's important to note that when the male wasp visits the orchid he actually mates with her, which means he spends a lot of energy and sperm on nothing. So some males evolved the ability to distinguish between a true female wasp and a false one, imitated by the orchid. The orchids, in return might have started evolving even more complex and sophisticated luring mechanisms.
> Of course, I'm only speculating here, but it's one way to explain this mechanism without needlessly involving a creator or a designer.


As you say "it's still not fully understood" which is the point I am making it can not be random IMO. And when a successful method has been achieved does the plant keep evolving and eventually change the method?? Not as straight forward as it would appear.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Andante said:


> As you say "it's still not fully understood" which is the point I am making it can not be random IMO. And when a successful method has been achieved does the plant keep evolving and eventually change the method?? Not as straight forward as it would appear.


Looks like you are 1) still not 'digging' the vastness of a million years, and 2) have 'volition' in the back of your mind. The 1) is really, really a long time, and 2) (volition) ain't in it.


----------

