Philosophical concerns stemming from abandonment of free will

[LCposter]

In another thread (the discontinuity paradox), I posited that the notions of free will and science must be mutually exclusive. It seems that by utilizing quantum uncertainty and chaos theory we can achieve unpredictability in a causal system, but free will seems to require more (specifically, non-causality). If you disagree with this premise and can reconcile free will with a scientific framework, please state how.

If you forego free will, then 2 questions to answer:

1. Is there accountability for one's actions? If so, how?
2. Is there a purpose to life? If so, what?

Note for #2, I'll accept either a specific purpose for YOUR life, or a purpose for life in general (why are we all here?)

I did a little forum search and these questions come up all the time. If anyone wants to point me to a good link that's fine. I'm still posting hoping to hear some new responses.

These questions may not seem inherently related, but they are comingled in my worldview. I see free will as a necessary prerequisite for both jusifying moral behavior as well as assigning a purpose to why I'm alive. Of course, the penalty for this view is that it seems to necessitate a God to instill free will.

I'm fixing my post because Buddhists believe in free will but no God. So more accurately, the penalty for a belief in free will seems to be its necessitates a soul (which may or may not be created by God).

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
In another thread (the discontinuity paradox), I posited that the notions of free will and science must be mutually exclusive. It seems that by utilizing quantum uncertainty and chaos theory we can achieve unpredictability in a causal system, but free will seems to require more (specifically, non-causality). If you disagree with this premise and can reconcile free will with a scientific framework, please state how.

If you forego free will, then 2 questions to answer:

1. Is there accountability for one's actions? If so, how?
2. Is there a purpose to life? If so, what?

Note for #2, I'll accept either a specific purpose for YOUR life, or a purpose for life in general (why are we all here?)

I did a little forum search and these questions come up all the time. If anyone wants to point me to a good link that's fine. I'm still posting hoping to hear some new responses.

These questions may not seem inherently related, but they are comingled in my worldview. I see free will as a necessary prerequisite for both jusifying moral behavior as well as assigning a purpose to why I'm alive. Of course, the penalty for this view is that it seems to necessitate a God to instill free will.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you do something then accountability is no more than pointing at you and saying there's the person who did it. Now lets act as we wish towards that person.

Free-will can't create purpose either. If we don't have a purpose without free-will then adding it won't change anything.

The free-will debate is a crock.

chez

[MidGe]

Hiya Chezlaw,

[ QUOTE ]
The free-will debate is a crock.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree entirely with you, but for different reasons. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Hiya Chezlaw,

[ QUOTE ]
The free-will debate is a crock.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree entirely with you, but for different reasons. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
Its over-determined. There's more than one reason sufficient to make it a crock [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

chez

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there accountability for one's actions?

[/ QUOTE ]

Accountability exists within the framework of social interrelations we as a species create for ourselves.

[ QUOTE ]
Is there a purpose to life?

[/ QUOTE ]

We create our own purpose and meaning to life. The fact that the purpose and meaning exists only exists as patterns of thought in our own minds, does not make it invalid.

[ QUOTE ]
a purpose for life in general (why are we all here?)

[/ QUOTE ]

Ignoring the human element, I see no reason why life should have any more purpose than any other item in the universe.

In fact I would consider the idea of meaning and purpose to be a human invention, and do not see why they should have any meaning outside human constructs. The drive to give everything a meaning and purpose being an evolved trait of humans used to aid in decision-making.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems that by utilizing quantum uncertainty and chaos theory we can achieve unpredictability in a causal system, but free will seems to require more (specifically, non-causality). If you disagree with this premise and can reconcile free will with a scientific framework, please state how.

[/ QUOTE ]
The unpredictability espoused by chaos theory, as I understand it, stems from "sensitivity to initial conditions and exponentially diverging trajectories." (Source.) However, the unpredictability inherent in quantum uncertainty inheres. It doesn't arise from the difficulty of predicting future outcomes based on sensitivity to the present state or computational difficulties; it is a fundamental property of quantum physics that the present state itself is undefined (and possibly that multiple present states can exist simultaneously) until the system is interacted with. In a sense, free will (if it exists) doesn't allow you to escape causal systems; instead it allows you to choose from among multiple (maybe infinite) causal systems.

[LCposter]

[ QUOTE ]
The unpredictability espoused by chaos theory, as I understand it, stems from "sensitivity to initial conditions and exponentially diverging trajectories." (Source.) However, the unpredictability inherent in quantum uncertainty inheres. It doesn't arise from the difficulty of predicting future outcomes based on sensitivity to the present state or computational difficulties; it is a fundamental property of quantum physics that the present state itself is undefined (and possibly that multiple present states can exist simultaneously) until the system is interacted with. In a sense, free will (if it exists) doesn't allow you to escape causal systems; instead it allows you to choose from among multiple (maybe infinite) causal systems.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad someone took on this approach. I'm still interested in hearing how to deal with the philosophical ramification that result from the absence of free will, but it seems easier to abandon the concept of soul and accept a scientific explanation for free will.

You're right in distinguishing between chaos theory and quantum uncertainty. I should have clarified a bit. If the model of the brain is deterministic but includes non-linearity (e.g. neural networks), then chaos theory basically eliminates the possibility of being able to predict a given brain's output based upon computer simulation (i.e. limitations in accurately specifying the initial state achieves unpredictability).

If consciousness exists at the quantum level, then we could consider the brain to be a collection of (possibly infinite) quantum states, each with an assigned probability based upon brain structure, memory, learned behavior, etc. Every time a biochemical reaction causes a neurotransmitter to fire, one of the random quantum states is realized and our model is updated with new possible trajectories and probabilities. A cascade of neural activity and random quantum state realizations results in a decision being made or thought arising to our conscious mind, and this cascade is impossibly difficult to understand so it appears to our conscious mind to be free will or independent thought.

Did I get the basic argument correct? Certainly a quantum consciousness allowing for random behavior (even if the resultant free will is only illusory) seems more palatable than determinism. Typically, when I've had this discussion, the opposing stance takes the position that there is no randomness (i.e. quantum uncertainty is simply a limitation in our understanding of subatomic particles) and that all that exists in the world, including the human mind, must necessarily be deterministic.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
If consciousness exists at the quantum level, then we could consider the brain to be a collection of (possibly infinite) quantum states, each with an assigned probability based upon brain structure, memory, learned behavior, etc. Every time a biochemical reaction causes a neurotransmitter to fire, one of the random quantum states [Not sure I like "random" here; the determination is probabilistic, but may be ("is probably"?) influenced by the specific reaction, so I don't think it's truly random. -Jogger] is realized and our model is updated with new possible trajectories and probabilities.

[/ QUOTE ]
With you so far, other than the above.

[ QUOTE ]
A cascade of neural activity and random quantum state realizations results in a decision

[/ QUOTE ]
Really, this cascade/state realization is the "decision" (if it is a decision at all: the existence of decision depends on the existence of free will).

[ QUOTE ]
being made or thought arising to our conscious mind, and this cascade is impossibly difficult to understand so it appears to our conscious mind to be free will or independent thought.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know about "so". I agree that in this model, the cascade would be impossible to understand (it's quantum: no initial state/multiple initial states), but I'm not sure why this would make it appear to be free will.

[ QUOTE ]
Did I get the basic argument correct?

[/ QUOTE ]
Speaking only for myself, I've never actually tried to understand (deeply) how quantum mechanics actually works. The fact that it works seems adequate to me to allow for the existence of free will, in that unpredictability, which I believe is absolutely necessary for free will, is a fundamental property of the universe. Call that the "weak QP/free will connection": QP permits free will.

To take the "strong" approach ("QP necessitates free will") - that is, to construct a syllogism that posits quantum physics and concludes that free will necessarily exists, is something I've never tried. (I think this would be quite difficult, largely owing to the difficulty of coming to a deep grasp of QP, which is itself incompletely understood at present.)

[ QUOTE ]
Certainly a quantum consciousness allowing for random behavior (even if the resultant free will is only illusory) seems more palatable than determinism.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure I agree.

[ QUOTE ]
Typically, when I've had this discussion, the opposing stance takes the position that there is no randomness (i.e. quantum uncertainty is simply a limitation in our understanding of subatomic particles) and that all that exists in the world, including the human mind, must necessarily be deterministic.

[/ QUOTE ]
The opposition position you are describing is incorrect, assuming our current understanding of QP (and its later elaborations) is correct. I wouldn't care to argue it.