Wonderful thoughts, James.

In Sam Harris’ book, Free Will, his argument that we have to make a choice to do something boils down to claiming that we will get bored by refusing to make a choice and then do something. In other words, he thinks people do not have the fortitude to refuse to do something. Apparently he is unaware of the dozens who have chosen to not eat and resisted until death. Just one of them is enough to prove his claim is unfounded.

I am also fascinated by the concerns you mention that are not given due consideration. Something else ignored is how so much of our behavior is through choices made on failed memories, misunderstood situations, misheard information, myopia, the stain of dreams, conflation, chance encounters, and so on. How any imagined model of determinism can account for that is beyond my comprehension. We make choices in a web of confusion and I doubt that there is some kind of cosmic order to our emerging fallibility. On top of that, when two unrelated causes from unshared paths come together, like drivers at an intersection, what model of determinism can account for what happens next? It could be how I meet my wife. We live in roiled stews of influences, some crafted by us, some created by others. 

Free will doesn’t mean we make good choices and it does not mean we aren’t influenced often beyond our awareness, and it doesn’t mean that sometimes we don’t make free choices. But unlike the arguments against it free will, free will is not a closed system making a claim about every single choice. Only one free choice in the history of mankind proves free will. But we have made many many free choices. 

Also, we revel in the mysteries of life. We often do not want to know the answers until we discern them on our own. We resist looking when there’s a spoiler alert. We resist peeking at our competition's cards. The one Christmas in which I found where my parents had hidden my presents I was terribly disappointed in knowing. I never again searched for my presents. We seek living lives of discovery, which requires a robust interaction of making choices. We also often embrace living with a bit of mystery about ourselves. We like surprises. Against, that, determinism is an odd, misguided, inhumane claim; it is an illusion based on bad math and misinterpreted science. 

Lastly, there is simply no proof for determinism and never will be.

I loved your tale from college. 

Thank you for your great ideas, 

Please, All Stay Safe,
Peter


Peter Lloyd Jones
562-209-4080

Sent by determined causes that no amount of will is able to thwart. 




On Nov 17, 2020, at 3:33 PM, James Lyons-Weiler <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Great lay-up, Peter.

In a network of causality, there is are processes that must be given due consideration: 
-attenuation
-noise propagation
-superpositioning
-signal canceling

These well-known features of information  propagation are present (but undercelebrated) in Massimo's "web" analogy - as if all causal signals from all sources are equally strong in their effect.  They are not.

I am working on an inverse information theoretic framework (general analytics) that reframes network relationships in a manner that highlights relationships among relationships via the entities they influence.  It's complex but the inversion reveals relationships among entities that are not always given due consideration.  Consider a graph of N entities with M edges, with the usual relationships given as Ni ---- Mx ---> Nj.   An N x N adjacency matrix defines the graph.  Invert same as an M x M adjacency matrix and study connections among entities.

The inverse analytics focus helps us realize that complex processes propagate via the web of webs interact - as processes - mediated via entities.  We tend to think of entities as recipients or causal factors but they can also be modifiers (gate switches), binary or thesholded, and they themselves are influenced.

Any complex system including society can be represented completely this way given enough time and attention to detail (right down to the spin of subatomic particles) if we have enough energy and time to make sufficiently granular and complete measures of everything.

If, having done that, we cannot predict with 100% accuracy the actions and thoughts of each human being - every thought, every action, then free will exists.  The person who decides (like me) to do the opposite of what is expected in such a test merely to prove free will creates free will.

Thus, to me, free will itself is a choice, made possible via metacognition.

Until proven otherwise, freewill to me is always a choice.  And therein lies accountability, personal responsibility, liability.

Until it becomes falsifiable, positions are a matter of belief.

The thought experiment of proving freedom of choice by some people doing the opposite
merely to make it so does, I think, prove free will as far as we can tell, unless we can predict 100% who will defy predicted actions every time.

I once infuriated my education of psychology professor when he claimed he could motivate anyone in the classroom to do his bidding (I think he was trying to demonstrate operant conditioning).    He said if anyone in the classroom thought he was wrong, we should raise our hands.  I raised my hand.  "You're behind in your computational labs, Mr. Weiler, and so here's the deal: if you leave this classroom, I'll give you an 'A' on all of your past labs.  If you do not, I will give you an 'F' on all of the lat labs".

Without saying a word, I packed my books into my backpack, and left the classroom.  The class burst out in giggles.

I could hear him telling the classroom how humans operate based on...

And I then opened the classroom door, walked back over to my seat, unpacked by books,
opened my notebook, and sat attentively, waiting for the rest of the lesson.

The class burst out into laughter.  I had clearly bested the professor.

The professor stopped talking. His face turned red.  Then a little purple.  He stammered,
then folded his arms and focused his gaze away from the classroom, toward an upper corner of the room.  Then, he upped the ante.

"This lecture will not continue until that person" - he said, pointing at me - "removes himself from this classroom".

I thought for a moment, then I packed up my bags again, and walked toward the door.  "I choose to leave for your benefit, not mine"  I said to my classmates. Turning to Dr. Pittenger, I then offered "And the terms of the original condition are null and void".

While Dr. Pittenger regained his composure and completed his lecture, I walked up two flights of stairs to the computer lab, sat down, logged in and completed my three overdue laboratory exercises.

Knowing that some of us would specifically choose to defy the prediction designed to prove the absence of free will proves free will, pending data otherwise.

I think.

James Lyons-Weiler



On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 2:52 PM Peter Lloyd Jones <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Folks,
Always being a sucker for arguments about whether or not we have free will…

I disagree with the argument as it is presented here by Massimo Pigliucci. He states:
"We live in a universe that works according to the laws of physics, and more broadly is governed by a web of cause and effect. If by “free” we mean that human beings somehow have the ability to transcend such laws then science tells us that we have no free will." 

(Just to put us on the same page, the terms “free will” are clumsy and obfuscating. But we can keep to them for historic reasons. The real question here, though, is about freedom, not about will.)

While I do not believe claims that we can transcend the “web of cause and effect”, I also do not believe that the “web of cause and effect” proves that we do not have free will. So I find the opening premise as he states it to be problematic. I think this issue is from him and others conflating "cause and effect" with “determined.” They are not synonymous. Just because there are causes does not mean that caused events are determined, in the sense of being immalleable consequences beyond the influence of human freedom. In many of our observations it appears that many events are caused by free choices.

I think this conflation arises from the multiple definitions of the word determined. For instance, if I am hoping to ski down a hill, facilitating that choice is determined by whether or not I have skis. But having skis does not determine whether or not I will choose to ski. So although causes can determine what we might choose, our choices are not determined, in the sense of being not freely chosen. In other words, although the laws of physics determine what we do, the laws of physics do not suggest that what we do is determined, to use two meanings of “determine” in one sentence. 

This confusion is repeatedly shared within the claims that determinism is consistent with the laws of physics, while free will must suffer gymnastics of compatibilism in order to be possible with or without magical justifications. Simply put, my argument against that is that “determinism" is what is not consistent with the laws of physics or with the web of cause and effect. Meanwhile, free will is consistent with the laws of physics. Of course, if this claim of mine is true, we must then redefine the philosophical use of the term compatibilism, or just abandon it. 

Free will is compatible with reality, so it is compatible with the laws of physics. Determinism is not compatible with the laws of physics, though it is conventionally assumed that such a claim is an unreasonable premise. But the laws of physics make no claim about a necessary single path of future events; they only claim that future events must have causes consistent with the laws of physics. Pigliucci claims that we must reconcile free will with the facts of science, yet the facts provided are not actually supported by science. 

Pigliucci concludes; "Again, you — and your decision-making brain apparatus — are part and parcel of the web of cause-effect, not something external to it and to which things just happen. If you get up and go to the doctor then you will get better. If you don’t, you won’t. You can’t use determinism as an excuse for inaction.” This argument, which is also put forward by Sam Harris, claims that we must voluntarily agree to make an involuntary predetermined choice for determinism to be true. But refusing to do that is not "using determinism as an excuse for inaction", it’s using free will as proof that determinism is without merit. 

I wholly welcome comments on either side of this.

Please stay safe,
Peter


Peter Lloyd Jones
562-209-4080

Sent by determined causes that no amount of will is able to thwart. 




On Nov 16, 2020, at 11:04 AM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hi TOK Folks,
 
Since the free will v. determinism debate seems to stir up interest, deciding to share this😊…
 
 
The authors view is that of a “compatibilist” which is how I identify…
 
Best,
Gregg
 
___________________________________________
Gregg Henriques, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Graduate Psychology
216 Johnston Hall
MSC 7401
James Madison University
Harrisonburg, VA 22807
(540) 568-7857 (phone)
(540) 568-4747 (fax)


Be that which enhances dignity and well-being with integrity.

Check out the Unified Theory Of Knowledge homepage at:
 
############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1


############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1



--
---
james lyons-weiler, phd
Author, CEO, President, Scientist
Guest Contributor, Children's Health Defense 

Ebola: An Evolving Story (World Scientific, 2015)
############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1


############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1