Question about BIP

[Triple Zero]

What is your body made up of?  Trillions of cells, right?  What does each of those tiny cells do?  Function as an automaton, right?

The question that I have yet seen any satisfying answer to is: where and how does "freedom" fit in within an amalgamation of automata?

these trillions of cells form a network. a very amazingly complex network.

the functions a network is able to perform, it's complexity, rises exponentially (or more) with the number of components in the network.

there are tresholds above which "properties" emerge from the network that are somehow bigger than the sum of its parts. this phenomenon is called emergence.

it is my belief that at a certain treshold a network will become capable of self-reference, or consciousness.

i would not think it is impossible that some steps further up the complexity chain perhaps "free will" becomes a possibility as well (although i'm not nearly as sure about that as i am about the consciousness thing).

the thing with free will is that you can seemingly always lead a certain action back to its originating impulses. i scratch my head because impulses in my nerves make my arm move, which are caused by impulses in my brain, caused by the sensation of itch. or something like that, you get the point.
now the beauty of it is, that for very complex networks (like our brains), you simply cannot do this. the amount of possible states of these networks is larger than the amount of particles in the known universe. it is simply impossible to trace the chain of deterministic events backward in these cases.

unfortunately i don't know much about the maths behind complex networks, but maybe i'll be able to study it one day, so i can actually defend these vague hunches a bit better.

[P3nT4gR4m]

it is my belief that at a certain treshold a network will become capable of self-reference, or consciousness.

Already happened or don't you think this applies to things like you?

[Triple Zero]

huh? yea i was talking about a complex network like our brain. so, seeing as i'm perfectly capable of reasoning about myself i would say, yes, yes self-consciousness has happened with me.

?

[P3nT4gR4m]

freewill?

[Triple Zero]

actually i'm not too sure about it, but it could be a possibility.

i did write this explanation down in a somewhat convoluted form on the philosophy exam i took when i was learning about this stuff (the free-will thing was part of a general philos. course "core problems of philosophy" good stuff), but i think they sort of ignored that bit, as i passed the exam anyway.

[Triple Zero]

reading about emergence on wikipedia now--check this out:

emergence refers to "the arising of novel and coherent structures, patterns and properties during the process of self-organization in complex systems." The common characteristics are: (1) radical novelty (features not previously observed in systems); (2) coherence or correlation (meaning integrated wholes that maintain themselves over some period of time); (3) A global or macro "level" (i.e. there is some property of "wholeness"); (4) it is the product of a dynamical process (it evolves); and (5) it is "ostensive" - it can be perceived. For good measure, Goldstein throws in supervenience -- downward causation."

an example of self-organisation is for example the appearance of those "sand ripples" on the beach when the wind blows. it's the cause for a lot of patterns in nature, like zebra stripes, skin cells etc (morphogenesis)
perhaps if you combine this with self-consciousness, you arrive at some sort of free will? [again, i'm just guessing here]

[Sir Perineal]

the thing with free will is that you can seemingly always lead a certain action back to its originating impulses. i scratch my head because impulses in my nerves make my arm move, which are caused by impulses in my brain, caused by the sensation of itch. or something like that, you get the point.
now the beauty of it is, that for very complex networks (like our brains), you simply cannot do this. the amount of possible states of these networks is larger than the amount of particles in the known universe. it is simply impossible to trace the chain of deterministic events backward in these cases.

Do you think the fact that we cannot "trace the chain of deterministic events" is what causes us to believe in an illusory free will?  Maybe it's like how we thought the sun revolved around the earth, until Copernicus provided evidence to the contrary, right?

[Triple Zero]

ok from wikipedia, how about this:

Emergence may be generally divided into two perspectives, that of "weak emergence" and "strong emergence". Weak emergence describes new properties arising in systems as a result of the interactions at an elemental level. Emergence, in this case, is merely part of the language, or model that is needed to describe a system's behavior.

But if, on the other hand, systems can have qualities not directly traceable to the system's components, but rather to how those components interact, and one is willing to accept that a system supervenes on its components, then it is difficult to account for an emergent property's cause. These new qualities are irreducible to the system's constituent parts (Laughlin 2005). The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. This view of emergence is called strong emergence. Some fields in which strong emergence is more widely used include etiology, epistemology and ontology.

Regarding strong emergence, Mark A. Bedau observes:

"Although strong emergence is logically possible, it is uncomfortably like magic. How does an irreducible but supervenient downward causal power arise, since by definition it cannot be due to the aggregation of the micro-level potentialities? Such causal powers would be quite unlike anything within our scientific ken. This not only indicates how they will discomfort reasonable forms of materialism. Their mysteriousness will only heighten the traditional worry that emergence entails illegitimately getting something from nothing."(Bedau 1997)

An emergent behaviour or emergent property can appear when a number of simple entities (agents) operate in an environment, forming more complex behaviours as a collective. If emergence happens over disparate size scales, then the reason is usually a causal relation across different scales. In other words there is often a form of top-down feedback in systems with emergent properties. These are two of the major reasons why emergent behaviour occurs: intricate causal relations across different scales and feedback. The property itself is often unpredictable and unprecedented, and may represent a new level of the system's evolution. The complex behaviour or properties are not a property of any single such entity, nor can they easily be predicted or deduced from behaviour in the lower-level entities: they are irreducible. No physical property of an individual molecule of air would lead one to think that a large collection of them will transmit sound. The shape and behaviour of a flock of birds or shoal of fish are also good examples.

so free will could be an emergent property at the macro- human interaction level, while it is pretty much deterministic at the micro- cellular interaction/chemical level (and again, i suppose, but it is besides the point anyway, non-deterministic at the quantum-level, IANAQP)

[Sir Perineal]

so free will could be an emergent property at the macro- human interaction level, while it is pretty much deterministic at the micro- cellular interaction/chemical level (and again, i suppose, but it is besides the point anyway, non-deterministic at the quantum-level, IANAQP)

At this point, you are really going to have to provide a rigorous definition of free will that you are working off of.

Back to the issue:

I don't think anyone denies the executive ability of the brain.  However, the traditional notion of free will involves us somehow exiting the causal chain of events.  I don't think any type of emergent property would involve such magic.

[Triple Zero]

the important point here is the separation of scale:

on the micro-level, chemicals and cells are (supposedly) acting causal and deterministic.

on the macro-level, things like our interaction, making of decisions, creativity, etc might not be.

[Sir Perineal]

the important point here is the separation of scale:

on the micro-level, chemicals and cells are (supposedly) acting causal and deterministic.

on the macro-level, things like our interaction, making of decisions, creativity, etc might not be.

I not even sure I know what it would mean to not act within the constraints of causation.

[LHX]

free will is romantic

causation isnt


if there is free will - then we post in this forum because we like to
if there isnt free will - then we were brought together for a reason


causation can be romantic as well - you just have to warm up to her a little bit


either way
here are a couple more observations:
- a lot of people hate this kind of discussion the same way they hate discussing death
- there are common courses of action that make sense regardless of what side of the fence you lean toward in this discussion

[Rev. St. Syn, KSC (Ret.)]

Two kinds of prison

1) people build it, capture you and put you in it

2) one you build yourself, figuratively, fake limitations you place on your own state of being

Both can be escaped from, with effort. We concentrate on no2.

syn - needed that.

[LMNO]

Peri:

It would seem to me that whether or not we actually have Free Will is irrelevant.  If given the way the Universe seems to work, and the way that Humans seem to behave inside it, then the important thing seems to be that we act as though we have free will.  To do otherwise is to submit your will to something other than yourself.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Freedom is not a state or phenomena. It is not a pattern of molecules or thoughts. Freedom is a decision. Once you decide to be free the question of whether freedom really exists or not becomes academic, you are free regardless.