I think that the idea that everything is physically determined and if unintelligible to humans physical in actuality is very compelling. That it could be proven true is another discussion.

What I can't get out of my mind is that stupid "train up a child" scripture with regards to how I feel about determinism. I makes rational sense but something in me rebels against it and I can't help thinking it is that crazy Mormon upbringing about earning my way to heaven and being free to not do so.

Anyone else have a hard time with dropping that Mormon concept of being "free to choose" - "win or lose"?

Nothing about some metaphysical ideal of liberty makes sense to me intellectually. We are all caught by fate in times and places and with genetic dispositions for some things and not others.

I grant that we have liberties like Sartre spoke of - I could do all sorts of things and I am at liberty to do so - but what a crazy notion that humans have "free agency" for which they will be "held accountable."

Try holding a destitute, starving person accountable for stealing food.

I can't even think how all the deterministic things in Mormon theology got started. The idea that some were better than others in the "pre-existence" yet these very same folks have some sort of "free agency" to right their pre-existent wrongs boggles my mind.

Crazy that some of my most difficult struggles with Mormonism tend toward the philosophic. And I'm not even "mingling" them "with scripture."

For me redefining free agency became key to becoming self aware and maturing my emotions. In Mormonism there are really no choices. Something is good or it is evil. Everything is so black and white you only have agency (responsibility) to choose what you have learned is "right". You never have a choice no matter how much lip service they give it. Not having a choice in my opinion causes feelings of helplessness and depression. It was critical for me to develop my power of choice. Determinism sounds like a good description of that.

That's deep philosophical water to swim in. Another thought to ponder: what exactly is the "I" that is supposedly making the free choice? An everchanging combination of physical states that nevertheless possess some degree of continuity? Is the concept of "person" even coherent?

We are born with all of these atoms arranged a certain way that we had no control over. And then we are thrust into an environment made of endless atoms that we have no control over. We are really just atoms interacted with other atoms, and free agency is all an illusion.

But what a powerful illusion it is

I'd say keen observation, but . . .

We need a new science based language stripped of all allusion to free will or an autonomous self.

Now if only we could choose to do something about it!

Drop a juicy steak in front of a starving human.

There is no such thing as full free-agency.

We are products of our rearing, culture, instinct, etc.

Sure, we make decisions, but within a VERY limited realm.

Some people have voluntarily starved themselves to death, hunger strikes and such. Not everyone has that degree of self control though. And I suppose we all have our limits. If we do have free will it is certainly constrained in some fashion. We couldn't be perfectly free.

I'll actually claim to have free will (or free agency if one sticks with mormonese) in that I can make my own decisions, knowing that the choices may not always be fair and there may be drastic consequence for certain choices.

I don't get how people who believe in an omniscient (all-knowing) god - like the god as described by Christianity or Mormonism or Islam or Judaism - can also claim to have this free agency thingy. If god knows what we are going to do before we do it, then we have no free agency at all, else we retroactively prove god wrong by choosing differently than he knew we would. It doesn't matter if the god is an interfering or scheming god or not, if it or anything else knows the future, then there is no free agency/will.

isn't compatible with omnipotence either. If the deity knows what will be, he can't choose other than to fulfill what will be. His/her/its actions are just as determined as those of his/her/its creations. S/he/it can choose to do anything except choose to do anything not already determined.

Damned-if-I-know-what-does-the-determining-ly yrs,

S

I lean towards determinism these days, but I'll leave the door open for the possibility for freewill. However, the evidence hasn't been favorable lately.

Once you take nature and nurture into account (both of which are deterministic), there doesn't seem to be a lot of room leftover for another force at work.

Wrestling with philosophical problems comes with the territory of Exmormonism. As Mormons, we were taught not to worry; that all the answers and issues would be resolved some day. As Exmormons, these issues become front and center, including the issues of free will and determinism. Let me clarify a few points:

(1) Determinism has been shown to be scientifically false. There are processes in quantum mechanics that are random and not causally determined. Thus, indeterminism, as a worldview, is currently the prescribed view. (Although there remain lingering minority exceptions)

(2) Indeterminism does NOT imply free will. For there to be free will, there must be facts about the world that are agent caused. In other words there must be physical states of affairs that are instigated by the free choice of an agent. Free will is not the same as random. Rather, it is action that is directed by the "will" of the agent, rather than some physical cause.

(3) In order to resolve the free will question, one has to come to grips with the idea of a "person" and specifically what it means for a person to have the power to make causally efficacious decisions. There is nothing biological that would suggest any such agency. It appears that on the macro level all biological (and neurological) processes are determined, even if there may be randon indeterminant processes on the micro level (the level of atoms and molecules) Thus, for each of our mental states and mental processes, it would seem that there are underlying physical brain states that cause such mental states, including the intentional mental states of beliefs and desires; and the decisions and actions that derive from such states.

(4) So, is free will an illusion. In my opinion, NO. There is abundant evidence that the mind can initiate (cause) brain states, which suggests that there is a "person" in some sense independent of the brain that has "free" control of at least some biological mechanisms. Other evidence suggests "mind over matter" where the mental has a controlling influence over the body. If you caught 60-Minutes yesterday, the placebo effect was discussed. Here is an example where the physical body is affected by mental processes, particularly beliefs. This kind of evidence must be explained by scientific materialists strickly upon physicalistic terms. Arguably, this cannot be done, suggesting, again, that the mind enjoys some level of independence from the brain. This "dualism" in turn suggests "personhood" that transcends the physical body and brain, including perhaps free will; however difficult it is to come up with a positive account as to what such "personshood" is, or specifically what non-physical mechanisms may be at work. Here we have total mystery.

The above was necessarily simplistic. However, the point is that as ExMormons our thinking about these isses is important in formulating a post-Mormon worldview. Beware of books and arguments that are too quick to dismiss free will when expressing an opinion on these matters.

Regarding point 4.

If the mind is purely physical, then wouldn't its effect(s) on the body a irrelevant in supporting the case for freewill?

It seems you would first have to establish its transcendence in order to make that argument.

"If the mind is purely physical, then wouldn't its effect(s) on the body a irrelevant in supporting the case for freewill?"

Yes. But you have to explain how the mind is purely physical. Clearly the relationship between the mind and brain is not an identity relationship. There is something about mind that is nonphysical. If you disagree, what then is the mind in physical terms?

"It seems you would first have to establish its transcendence in order to make that argument."

Absent a physical explanation for mind, I think transcendence has, to some extent, been established. In any event, mind is a reality. Absent a scientific explanation in physicalist terms, then it would seem that its transendent nature would support a form of dualism, however tentative.

Well, I reject substance dualism. I think have several centuries of argument, we have a decent case against it.

The more subtler forms are trickier. I will admit there is something strange about qualia, but it still seems to depend on the physical, and not to transcend it causally.

I have brought this thought up as a thread.

Its very important to understand if you subscribe either atheist or deist. The thing is, you can't say both, because now you are speaking in degrees of free will vs. determinism and how do you quantify the correct amount each way without bias? Its almost its own ecclectic view.

Eventhough, Henry Bemis brings up some good points, I still see an ecclectic disposition towards determinism cuz we are one or the other regardless of hunger or thirst. Trying to account for all variables means that if there was a possibility to create a math equation to account for some, that would infer that all variables exist and we are determined rather than free agents.

Watch the movie "beautiful mind" with russel crow. Great true story movie where the guy gets a noble peace prize for an equation he invented that basically shows we are determined.

This conversation can get realy heavy. My undergrad is in Psych from BYU and I had a real challenging class that changed my whole view of psych on the whole that I no longer see it as much of a valid science because all schools of psych = determinism.

I on the other hand think that if you can eliminate free will, then there is no culpability. Without that, how can one be judged or put on death row etc... They would all then be products of our environment. So then, we, as a society, are the blame. Human thinking is so much more complex because some will clep to this judgement knowing they can get away with it whereas another would just not do murder at all because they don't regardless of law.

At any rate, I don't think there is a perfect combination to make someone fall in love with another or to not hunger at all. There are weaknesses, but then there are choices that can be made without regard to weaknesses of the flesh. I don't like to look at humanity as a very complex logorythm that defies basic math and computer computations.

I think ppl develop their own values and are driven by them. Values can change as did ours as we left LDS Inc. However, we all still challenge ourselves intellectually which continues to raise the bar beyond previous limitations. Am I saying that the variables change an evolve? No, but the values do. As the values in us change, we seek different choices that bring us closer to what we value. Some will hate eating while others will develop drug problems. Values are always changing and are not always the same between each person. Maybe you can predict certain values like someone who likes fish vs. one who can't eat peanut butter. Maybe we find the cure for the birth defect that causes someone to be able to eat peanut butter and now their values change and evolve over time once again.

Where does determinism end and free will begin? Its almost like saying, "what came first, the chicken or the egg"?

Think about it before you comment. Its a royal mind Fudge.

ontheDownLow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Its very important to understand if you subscribe
> either atheist or deist.

Atheist.

> Where does determinism end and free will begin?
> Its almost like saying, "what came first, the
> chicken or the egg"?

I think that within a contextual frame of reference such as any given moment, a potential for "wiggle room" is always in play. There is a highly improbability that I will leave my computer and walk away from my family today. It "could" happen.

I think that my habits and my desire to exist within a familial framework are the direct result of nature and nurture in myself.

If determinism, in my opinion, has a high probability in all human interactions then it is probably from a general standpoint.

For example, exmormons don't all become drug-addicted, alcoholic, sex-crazed serial killers anymore than the general population.

This goes for my in-laws erroneous idea that Mormon marriages fail less often then gentile ones.

Things like this our deterministic in my mind because they include a large population and show trends. On individual basis, there are genetic predispositions to smoke, to be aggressive, etc.

The expressions of things are less deterministic in my mind.

Elder Berry: I understand what your saying but again, how much of our choices are biological and how much are experience?

Thomas Watson, the father of behaviorism, said that if he knew every single thing about you both nature vs. nurture, he could then predict your next move. Of course, we can not fully ensure that we have accounted for every possible variable that influences our choice making.

This is the big question. If it were possible to control for all variables, then we are determined?

For example, Rich Dawkins thinks we are determined to follow our religions based on where we grow up and who we grow up with. Technology has changed this drastically now. 200 years ago, if you were born in china or australia you followed whatever was there. Now with Planes, cars, internet, etc. ppl change.

For the exmo world, I can honestly say, if it werent for the internet, there is no way I would have figured all this stuff out and leave the church.

Technology has become an interesting variable in our exit from the Morg.

ontheDownLow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Elder Berry: I understand what your saying but
> again, how much of our choices are biological and
> how much are experience?

That is a good question isn't it? But they could be seen as redundant. Our experience was acquired biologically. It set up the initial conditions and what it derives in benefit from said experience is a tribute to it evolutionarily.

I think that while sub-atomically there probably is something close to "random" in the big world initial conditions inform a lot of what we perceive as random in human behavior.

My own behavior at times appears to me programmed from my youth.

Strange that the morg thinks there is such a thing as "free agency." The are in the business of training up youth to not exercising much of it. But then again, they would probably claim genetic mishaps in humans as God determined to be.

> Technology has become an interesting variable in
> our exit from the Morg.

It was my tipping point. I wish I wasn't so wishy washy that I could have tortured myself with it for the rest of my life if I hadn't found strength in reading about others.

ontheDownLow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is the big question. If it were possible to
> control for all variables, then we are
> determined?

If we could control all variables, I bet there would be "anomalies" in some of the "experiments" but that our ability to predict would increase. Would it show us to be determined? I think it would go a long way in showing that much of what we are like is determined like in physics, if you have enough variables and vectors, it looks that way.

Elder Berry: If we are then just a complex logarithm, how can anyone be held accountable for their actions in a court of law. Wouldn't the sum total of events in ones life experience plus the biological be the blame?

For example, think of when stupid ppl ignore signs that say "keep out of the bear cage area." Next thing you know, while trying to get an up close picture of a polar bear, the massive animal grabs the woman and snaps her leg like a pencil.

Afterwards, all of the animal rights activits jump to the defense of the bear and say the stupid woman was asking for trouble by ignoring the warning signs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wGbCNDw-m0


Shouldn't we then be treated the same way as the bear?

I don't have the answers myself, but I am hoping that we are more than just sophisticated predictable animals.

The incredible variety of human culture points to some exercise of free will. The biological and environment variables alone cannot account for this great of variation. What we choose to think and do makes a difference.

Within chaotic, non-linear systems, order and turbulence can and does exist at the same time.

"The incredible variety of human culture points to some exercise of free will. The biological and environment variables alone cannot account for this great of variation. What we choose to think and do makes a difference."

There is no logical (or mathematical) connection between the complexity of human culture, on the one hand, and the limits of biology and environmental factors (information), on the other hand, such as to support your conclusion that free will is inevitable. Although I agree with your conclusions, i.e. "what we think and do makes a difference," your premise does not support this conclusion.

"Within chaotic, non-linear systems, order and turbulence can and does exist at the same time."

This is beside the point. Chaotic, non-linear systems, as well as ordered, non-linear, complex adaptive systems, both exist in nature and are, to some extent, the result of random forces. Of course, this fact alone has nothing obvious to do with free will, which is a function of mind and personhood.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> This is beside the point. Chaotic, non-linear
> systems, as well as ordered, non-linear, complex
> adaptive systems, both exist in nature and are, to
> some extent, the result of random forces. Of
> course, this fact alone has nothing obvious to do
> with free will, which is a function of mind and
> personhood.



I believe the point is: chaos, non-linear systems are still described. They're still part of the model. As such, they are "material" in the physical sense (as opposed to the metaphysical myth). Free will, defined as choosing when faced with options can be simply one biophysical gate opening and another closing due to slight differences in membrane potentials of the action potentials incident at the gates. The potential differences can be explained entirely physically. That fork in the road is biophysical.

You say that free will is a function of mind and personhood. I understand the classic definition of mind, but what do you mean by personhood?

"I believe the point is: chaos, non-linear systems are still described. They're still part of the model. As such, they are "material" in the physical sense (as opposed to the metaphysical myth)."

Yes and no. Let's take the more interesting (I think) complex adaptive systems that emerge from chaos. These are, of course, physical systems with emergent physical properties. However, the nature of the physical laws that are in play here remains largely metaphysical. We no longer have scientific reduction, such that the whole is simply explained by the sumation of its parts. So, what scientific law (i.e. mathematically defined prinicple) "explains" why such complex, ordered, emergent properties to arise? (By the way, your use of the pejoritive term "metaphysical myth" is misplaced. Metaphysics plays a very significant role in modern science and should not be associated casually with religious connotation of "myth")

"Free will, defined as choosing when faced with options can be simply one biophysical gate opening and another closing due to slight differences in membrane potentials of the action potentials incident at the gates. The potential differences can be explained entirely physically. That fork in the road is biophysical."

This in no way explains free will. What you are describing are purely subtle, but deterministic, biological processes. Now it may be the case that such things explain the "illusion" of free will in some complicated sense. But such deterministic processes cannot account for free will in any real and meaningful way. To do that you have to go beyond deterministic biological processes. You might try to invoke micro quantum processes, but that will only give you randomness, not free will.

"You say that free will is a function of mind and personhood. I understand the classic definition of mind, but what do you mean by personhood?"

Well, of course, that is the entire question. If personhood or subjective mind is an emergent property of the deterministic brain (The common assumption), then presumably the processes of the mind are also deterministic. It is hard to see how real (not illusional) free will can emerge from deterministic brain processes, especially considering the causal closure of the physical. So, what then is personhood? In one sense it is either a profound illusion; or we have to look beyond the deterministic brain for the answer. Neither option is very satisfactory.

Always good to "talk" to you.

HB (RS)

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> However, the
> nature of the physical laws that are in play here
> remains largely metaphysical. We no longer have
> scientific reduction, such that the whole is
> simply explained by the sumation of its parts.

I think your definition of metaphysical is anything that isn't fully explicable and verified/validated by a current model. That's not at all how science views it. Metaphysical is defined as something that cannot be observed empirically by/thru physical laws. It is Meta (above) physics. That goes against the scientific method. If it is a physical law that can not be understood through observation, then it is not a physical law, according to the scientific method. If you want to persist that the universe can be understood without observation, then it seems you mean the version of the universe you perceive in your thoughts only. That's not relevant to the masses.


> So, what scientific law (i.e. mathematically
> defined prinicple) "explains" why such complex,
> ordered, emergent properties to arise? (By the
> way, your use of the pejoritive term "metaphysical
> myth" is misplaced. Metaphysics plays a very
> significant role in modern science and should not
> be associated casually with religious connotation
> of "myth")

I disagree. I don't think is has a role in science. That's just my opinion as one working in science.


> "Free will, defined as choosing when faced with
> options can be simply one biophysical gate opening
> and another closing due to slight differences in
> membrane potentials of the action potentials
> incident at the gates. The potential differences
> can be explained entirely physically. That fork in
> the road is biophysical."
>
> This in no way explains free will. What you are
> describing are purely subtle, but deterministic,
> biological processes.

Yep. I know. And I believe it does explain "free will" because I believe that free will is probably an illusion in the mind. I would like to be wrong, but parsimony says that if the current model continues to explain observations then an extra/added hypothesis about a metaphysical "process" is unneeded.

> such deterministic
> processes cannot account for free will in any real
> and meaningful way.

That's a belief on your part. Evidence in neuroscience so far is showing that it is explicable by these processes. I've yet to see something that is really well outside of the current physical model. If you can present it, I would be interested.

Saying that free will is inexplicable is not the same as it being inexplicable. I realize that magic (metaphysics) is a core part of your belief, but it's not part of science.


> Well, of course, that is the entire question. If
> personhood or subjective mind is an emergent
> property of the deterministic brain (The common
> assumption), then presumably the processes of the
> mind are also deterministic. It is hard to see
> how real (not illusional) free will can emerge
> from deterministic brain processes, especially
> considering the causal closure of the physical.

And if a model of emergent complex process can show decision making ability, which for all intents and purposes mimics our free will, then the extra gap-filler of metaphysical personhood goes away.

Examples of strides in this area are:
This web-based program has fooled humans thinking that they talk with humans real-time. In other words, the computer can communicate topics and transition/choose its words in realtime.
http://cleverbot.com/
(see * below)

"A Digital Neurosynaptic Core..." http://www.modha.org/papers/012.CICC1.pdf

and many others in cognitive computing.

> So, what then is personhood? In one sense it is
> either a profound illusion; or we have to look
> beyond the deterministic brain for the answer.
> Neither option is very satisfactory.


You're right that most people won't be happy to learn it is deterministic and physical, without magic. But people have almost always had a lot of ego about their position in the universe.

* from the wiki on cleverbot:
Cleverbot took part alongside humans in a formal Turing Test at the 2011 Techniche festival at the Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati on September 3, 2011. Out of the 1,334 votes cast, Cleverbot was judged to be 59.3% human, compared to the rating of 63.3% human achieved by the actual humans. A score of 50% or higher is often considered to be a pass of the Turing Test.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2012 11:55AM by Jesus Smith.

Where is free will located, or where does it come from? If it is in the brain, then it is just part of the electro-chemical & biological machinery of the brain. As such it is governed by the laws of biophysics (i.e., reducible to known and probabilistic pathways that are predictable). It would not truly be free to choose outside of the brain's programmed stimulus/response within a given environment. In other words, if free will is in the brain, it is an illusion and actually fairly deterministic (with perhaps a tiny amount of randomness implied by quantum/statistical events).

If free will is not an illusion and comes from outside the brain, in what some would call generally a soul/spirit, it suggests there is something not regulated by the laws of biophysics. (Again, if it falls under the laws of science, it is calculable at least in a probabilistic if not deterministic manner.)

The idea that determinism rules is understandable. But I don't think it is the entire picture. I believe that at decision points, randomness has a factor that may push us into a pathway that is not completely determined. That is why free will seems so real.

Furthermore, there are some slight evidence that quantum entanglement (or similar phenomena) from the mind could have a tiny tiny influence on other quantum events. This is the research at princeton (tho it is controversial). http://noosphere.princeton.edu/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2012 08:59AM by Jesus Smith.

I saw this post after I responded above. I agree with most of what is said here, which is similar to the points I made above.

However, you suggested:

"I believe that at decision points, randomness has a factor that may push us into a pathway that is not completely determined. That is why free will seems so real."

O.K. When you say "decision points" you are presumably talking about psychology, i.e. when it appears we are making a decision, and you are suggesting that a random quantum brain effect might be the cause of this "illusion." This seems to me to be wild speculation. In the first place, there is no neurological evidence to suggest any relationship between quantum brain effects and specific psychological experience. Quite the contrary, phenomenal experience is identified with deterministic, macro brain processess, not quantum processes.

However you cut the cards, it is unlikely that quantum effects, including subtle effects of entanglement will never explain real free will. It also seems unlikely that it will ever explain the illusion of free will. But occurances, it seems to me, will depend upon an established relationship between QM and mind.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> O.K. When you say "decision points" you are
> presumably talking about psychology, i.e. when it
> appears we are making a decision, and you are
> suggesting that a random quantum brain effect
> might be the cause of this "illusion." This seems
> to me to be wild speculation. In the first place,
> there is no neurological evidence to suggest any
> relationship between quantum brain effects and
> specific psychological experience. Quite the
> contrary, phenomenal experience is identified with
> deterministic, macro brain processess, not quantum
> processes.
>

Yes, it is speculation on my part. But at least it is more grounded than saying the consciousness is metaphysical without really defining what that means. To me, metaphysical/spiritual and what not are just words without any observational evidence. Quantum randomness is measurable and modeled.

Also, see these interesting corollaries:
Quantum coherence in microtubules: A neural basis for emergent consciousness?
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/imp/jcs/1994/00000001/00000001/art00008
Unpredictability and Indeterminism in Human Behavior: Arguments and Implications for Educational Research
http://edr.sagepub.com/content/18/3/17.short
Quantum randomness can be controlled by free will –a consequence of the before-before experiment
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0804.0871.pdf

Some have argued that the ordered chains of chemical reactions on which biological tissues depend would collapse without some form of quantum ordering (i.e., quantum field theory). Evidence for this exists in studies of radiation effect on cell growth, neuronal response to external stimuli, non-linear tunneling in neurons, coherent nuclear motion in neuronal membrane proteins,optical (quantum) coherence in biological systems, and energy transfer via solitons and coherent excitations.

> However you cut the cards, it is unlikely that
> quantum effects, including subtle effects of
> entanglement will never explain real free will.

What the heck is "real" free will? Define that and we can discuss what causes it to arise.


> It also seems unlikely that it will ever explain the
> illusion of free will.

Not so fast. I believe that cognitive computing paired with randomness can/will in fact explain or mimic human behavior including decision making. And it will be understood how it works. The illusion is thinking that we are separate from these processes.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2012 12:11PM by Jesus Smith.

Hitchens: "I have not choice but to believe so."