Free Will

[RCSaunders]

RogerSH wrote:



I agree. Brain and mind of any individual are parallel events, neither causes the other. Brain and mind are caused in parallel by nature (or God if you prefer).

Unless you are referring to brain activity, the brain itself is not an, "event," it is an entity. If you are referring to brain activity, I think you would have to include the entire neurological system. Without that entire neurological system I cannot be conscious of what I am doing with my hands and feet or see, hear, feel, smell, or taste anything.

I don't see how consciousness and brain activity can be independent of one another. It seems it is the activity of our neurological system that is what we are conscious of and by which we are conscious of everything else. You cannot damage that system without affecting consciousness.

Actually as far as we can tell, every entity, possibly excluding elementary particles if there are such things, are events or processes--they obtain via smaller things (quarks, leptons, bosons, etc.) being in dynamic relations with other smaller things (other quarks, leptons, bosons, etc.).

Who is, "we?"

There are only entities. The so called, "elementary particles," are only metaphors for the behavior of actual physical entities. Begin with the atom. Electrons, neutrons, and protons are only ways of, "picturing," the fact that chemical elements only combine (as compounds) in discrete whole number proportions. The most current picture of an atom is not some little particle or miniature solar system, but an amorphous mix of, "fields." But atoms are only a way of explaining the properties and attribute of actual physical entities.

An event is only what entities do. To call the imaginary sub-atomic particles events is a kind of floating abstraction. It is not possible to observe any of those so-called, "events," except as they are manifest in actual perceivable entities.

Atoms and all the sub-atomic particles are a good way of picturing the nature of physical entities, but to consider them to be actual ontological existents, or anything more than metaphorical, "pictures," of the properties of actual physical entities is a kind of reification or hypostatization.

It is, perhaps, the biggest mistake in science today, and positively devastating to philosophy.

[RCSaunders]

RogerSH wrote:



I agree. Brain and mind of any individual are parallel events, neither causes the other. Brain and mind are caused in parallel by nature (or God if you prefer).

Unless you are referring to brain activity, the brain itself is not an, "event," it is an entity. If you are referring to brain activity, I think you would have to include the entire neurological system. Without that entire neurological system I cannot be conscious of what I am doing with my hands and feet or see, hear, feel, smell, or taste anything.

I don't see how consciousness and brain activity can be independent of one another. It seems it is the activity of our neurological system that is what we are conscious of and by which we are conscious of everything else. You cannot damage that system without affecting consciousness.

That seems right. When you move your body including your brain, consciousness comes with you. Therefore, I conclude they are dependent.

"Dependent," is exactly the right word. The physical brain does not, "cause," consciousness, and consciousness does not emerge from brain activity, but there can be no consciousness without the brain, just as there cannot be life without a physical entity, though the physical entity does not produce the life.

Where the brain is, is where consciousness is if my reasoning is right.

I'm not sure I would agree with that way of expressing it. Consciousness is not a thing that has a location. Consciousness is not an entity, like the brain, it is an attribute like weight, size, or life. If you only mean, there is no consciousness independent of the brain, that is certainly true.

[Terrapin Station]

Unless you are referring to brain activity, the brain itself is not an, "event," it is an entity. If you are referring to brain activity, I think you would have to include the entire neurological system. Without that entire neurological system I cannot be conscious of what I am doing with my hands and feet or see, hear, feel, smell, or taste anything.

I don't see how consciousness and brain activity can be independent of one another. It seems it is the activity of our neurological system that is what we are conscious of and by which we are conscious of everything else. You cannot damage that system without affecting consciousness.

Actually as far as we can tell, every entity, possibly excluding elementary particles if there are such things, are events or processes--they obtain via smaller things (quarks, leptons, bosons, etc.) being in dynamic relations with other smaller things (other quarks, leptons, bosons, etc.).

Who is, "we?"

There are only entities. The so called, "elementary particles," are only metaphors for the behavior of actual physical entities. Begin with the atom. Electrons, neutrons, and protons are only ways of, "picturing," the fact that chemical elements only combine (as compounds) in discrete whole number proportions. The most current picture of an atom is not some little particle or miniature solar system, but an amorphous mix of, "fields." But atoms are only a way of explaining the properties and attribute of actual physical entities.

An event is only what entities do. To call the imaginary sub-atomic particles events is a kind of floating abstraction. It is not possible to observe any of those so-called, "events," except as they are manifest in actual perceivable entities.

Atoms and all the sub-atomic particles are a good way of picturing the nature of physical entities, but to consider them to be actual ontological existents, or anything more than metaphorical, "pictures," of the properties of actual physical entities is a kind of reification or hypostatization.

It is, perhaps, the biggest mistake in science today, and positively devastating to philosophy.

We--humanity, in doing research about this.

We can observe molecules and even single atoms to some extent. We know that items like brains are composed of smaller things, and we know that those things are in dynamic relationships to each other. Hence they're events or processes, not static things.

We also know this via indirect evidence of how things change over time.

[RCSaunders]

We can observe molecules and even single atoms to some extent. We know that items like brains are composed of smaller things, and we know that those things are in dynamic relationships to each other. Hence they're events or processes, not static things.

Let's just address one of these concepts for now.

What is an event or process. Can there just be process? Doesn't there have to be something that acts for there to be an event or process? An event or process is only the behavior of entities. Sans entities, there are no events or processes.

There is nothing static implied by the concept entity. In fact, an entity almost always has attributes that are changing (unless they are at absolute zero).

[RogerSH]

Causal chains in time sequence are only a part of determinism. Other parts of determinism are causal circumstances which operate at the same time as the decision; and nomic connections i.e. many events are necessary parts of the same unchanging cause.

It may be helpful to point out some of the features of determinism in physics (not all well-known).

Newtonian physics is characterised by instantaneous determinism: that is to say, the complete facts about the state of a closed system (e.g. the universe) at an instant are sufficient to determine the rate of change of all those facts at that instant. This in itself, however, is not enough to ensure that there is only one possible future: if the system were to include an infinitely divisible fluid, for example, although equations could be written describing the behaviour at any point, they would not yield a unique solution for the future state.

So let us specify atomism, which avoids infinite divisibility and leaves a finite number of equations. Then there are two basic cases: locally convergent and locally divergent behaviour, depending on the situation – which affect the predictability-in-principle of the behaviour.

If closely adjacent trajectories converge – think of a snooker ball heading for a pocket – any error in the initial state leads to a smaller error in the final state, so prediction is not a problem.

However, if closely adjacent trajectories diverge – think of two snooker balls colliding – then however small the initial error, the final error will be larger, so that, in effect, the last decimal digit of the finishing position will always be unpredictable, even in principle!

Of course, one could try to avoid this problem by speaking of the “exact” initial state, although this implies an infinite amount of information about it, which might cause metaphysical debate. But, in any case, in our physical universe the latter solution becomes unavailable on account of quantum uncertainty: in time, any divergent situation will magnify atomic scale uncertainty to everyday scale. Although this is true even for linear divergence, in practice, much the most important cases are those that diverge exponentially – better known as “chaotic” cases. This is why chaos + quantum theory makes our universe non-deterministic in practice.

Nevertheless, much remains locally predetermined to a close approximation, and we can now recognize that this is by virtue of the convergent situations. So, by and large, the outcomes that describe the familiar world are those resulting from convergence.

This prompts the question: what makes processes convergent? I suggest, briefly, structures: existing quasi-static structures (like the snooker pocket), and novel structures coming into existence (like soap bubbles).

One interesting implication of all this:- There is one type of entity in the known world that is remarkable for the wholly exceptional complexity and dynamism of its structure: the (especially human) brain. So these basic physical principles would suggest, even without knowing much more detail, that the brain should have an exceptional ability to influence outcomes in the world.

[RogerSH]

.....it is an attribute like weight, size, or life.

I’m not hot on metaphysics: could you clarify the following?

Life has a number of distinctive characteristics. What justifies reducing that to a single attribute, not several separate attributes? I know they are usually found in combination, but couldn’t that be because they tend to be mutually dependant, not because there is a single “attribute” that explains them all?

Including “attributes” in ontology seems to be an endless task. What about the attribute of being identical to your famous cat, possessed by one instance in the universe? Or does an “attribute” have to be shared by at least two examples to count?

The things that characterise life can all be regarded as exceptional capabilities. Each of these capabilities has been explained by recent science by the natural interactive behaviour of a number of extremely complex molecules, each formed from atoms behaving just like atoms of the same elements in inanimate objects. How would a world possessing atoms like this, and hence molecules like this, and hence entities with capabilities like this, be distinguishable from one with all this plus the “ontological attribute of life”? In other words what does the identification of this attribute add to our understanding? Or is this simply a shorthand label for the set of capabilities?

[jayjacobus]

We can observe molecules and even single atoms to some extent. We know that items like brains are composed of smaller things, and we know that those things are in dynamic relationships to each other. Hence they're events or processes, not static things.

Let's just address one of these concepts for now.

What is an event or process. Can there just be process? Doesn't there have to be something that acts for there to be an event or process? An event or process is only the behavior of entities. Sans entities, there are no events or processes.

There is nothing static implied by the concept entity. In fact, an entity almost always has attributes that are changing (unless they are at absolute zero).

You are quite convincing.

[Belinda]

Causal chains in time sequence are only a part of determinism. Other parts of determinism are causal circumstances which operate at the same time as the decision; and nomic connections i.e. many events are necessary parts of the same unchanging cause.

It may be helpful to point out some of the features of determinism in physics (not all well-known).

Newtonian physics is characterised by instantaneous determinism: that is to say, the complete facts about the state of a closed system (e.g. the universe) at an instant are sufficient to determine the rate of change of all those facts at that instant. This in itself, however, is not enough to ensure that there is only one possible future: if the system were to include an infinitely divisible fluid, for example, although equations could be written describing the behaviour at any point, they would not yield a unique solution for the future state.

So let us specify atomism, which avoids infinite divisibility and leaves a finite number of equations. Then there are two basic cases: locally convergent and locally divergent behaviour, depending on the situation – which affect the predictability-in-principle of the behaviour.

If closely adjacent trajectories converge – think of a snooker ball heading for a pocket – any error in the initial state leads to a smaller error in the final state, so prediction is not a problem.

However, if closely adjacent trajectories diverge – think of two snooker balls colliding – then however small the initial error, the final error will be larger, so that, in effect, the last decimal digit of the finishing position will always be unpredictable, even in principle!

Of course, one could try to avoid this problem by speaking of the “exact” initial state, although this implies an infinite amount of information about it, which might cause metaphysical debate. But, in any case, in our physical universe the latter solution becomes unavailable on account of quantum uncertainty: in time, any divergent situation will magnify atomic scale uncertainty to everyday scale. Although this is true even for linear divergence, in practice, much the most important cases are those that diverge exponentially – better known as “chaotic” cases. This is why chaos + quantum theory makes our universe non-deterministic in practice.

Nevertheless, much remains locally predetermined to a close approximation, and we can now recognize that this is by virtue of the convergent situations. So, by and large, the outcomes that describe the familiar world are those resulting from convergence.

This prompts the question: what makes processes convergent? I suggest, briefly, structures: existing quasi-static structures (like the snooker pocket), and novel structures coming into existence (like soap bubbles).

One interesting implication of all this:- There is one type of entity in the known world that is remarkable for the wholly exceptional complexity and dynamism of its structure: the (especially human) brain. So these basic physical principles would suggest, even without knowing much more detail, that the brain should have an exceptional ability to influence outcomes in the world.

I am not good at physics and I would appreciate everyday examples as well as billiard balls examples, or even biological examples. I would also appreciate diagrams of converging and diverging processes of billiard balls.
Your comment is interesting, and I am trying to understand.

I wonder why you specify atomism, which seems to me to be contrary to relativity. If there is an infinity divisible fluid don't we have statistical probability regarding predicted effects?

Man's known past shows that the human brain-mind has exceptional ability to influence outcomes in the world. One of those outcomes in the world is human evolution where the genetic channel is outstripped by the cultural channel.

"What makes processes convergent?". Some say God does it. I prefer the theory that natura naturans is what makes processes convergent.

[RogerSH]

... if the system were to include an infinitely divisible fluid, for example, although equations could be written describing the behaviour at any point, they would not yield a unique solution for the future state.

So let us specify atomism, which avoids infinite divisibility and leaves a finite number of equations. Then there are two basic cases: locally convergent and locally divergent behaviour, depending on the situation – which affect the predictability-in-principle of the behaviour.

I am not good at physics and I would appreciate everyday examples as well as billiard balls examples, or even biological examples. I would also appreciate diagrams of converging and diverging processes of billiard balls.
Your comment is interesting, and I am trying to understand.

I wonder why you specify atomism, which seems to me to be contrary to relativity. If there is an infinity divisible fluid don't we have statistical probability regarding predicted effects?

Man's known past shows that the human brain-mind has exceptional ability to influence outcomes in the world. One of those outcomes in the world is human evolution where the genetic channel is outstripped by the cultural channel.

"What makes processes convergent?". Some say God does it. I prefer the theory that natura naturans is what makes processes convergent.

I have a diagram, but haven't worked out for to incorporate it in a post yet. Any pointers welcome!

An infinitely divisible fluid subject to some energy input (like a waterfall) gives rise to eddies. Statistically averaging out an eddy would miss the point! To predict the eddies numerically you would have know the state on a grid of points - "discretising the equations". This would enable predictions with limited life. To increase the durability of the prediction you could refine the grid, but it turned out that as the number of grid points was increased indefinitely, the life of the prediction converged to a finite number. Beyond that life, prediction would be impossible, just from the nature of the equations. In other words, however closely-spaced the grid is, the unknown variations between one grid point and the next would progressively introduce uncertainty on larger & larger scales as time went on, and reach the largest scale in a finite time.

In practice, fluids are made of molecules, so once you have exact data on every molecule, there would be nothing unknown. That's all I meant by "atomism". But molecules are governed by quantum theory, so exact knowledge of the state is ruled out by Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle instead. (Most physicists believe that it's not just that the experimenter lacking knowledge, in effect Nature doesn't know either).

A water molecule landing anywhere in the basin of a river will (if it doesn't evaporate etc.!) finish up flowing through the mouth of the river. That's one example of how structure leads to convergence. It's the quasi-static data (the geography of the basin) not the dynamic data (initial position and velocity of all the water molecules) that determines the broad-brush outcome.

What is "natura naturans"? Nature being Nature?

[Belinda]

... if the system were to include an infinitely divisible fluid, for example, although equations could be written describing the behaviour at any point, they would not yield a unique solution for the future state.

So let us specify atomism, which avoids infinite divisibility and leaves a finite number of equations. Then there are two basic cases: locally convergent and locally divergent behaviour, depending on the situation – which affect the predictability-in-principle of the behaviour.

I am not good at physics and I would appreciate everyday examples as well as billiard balls examples, or even biological examples. I would also appreciate diagrams of converging and diverging processes of billiard balls.
Your comment is interesting, and I am trying to understand.

I wonder why you specify atomism, which seems to me to be contrary to relativity. If there is an infinity divisible fluid don't we have statistical probability regarding predicted effects?

Man's known past shows that the human brain-mind has exceptional ability to influence outcomes in the world. One of those outcomes in the world is human evolution where the genetic channel is outstripped by the cultural channel.

"What makes processes convergent?". Some say God does it. I prefer the theory that natura naturans is what makes processes convergent.

I have a diagram, but haven't worked out for to incorporate it in a post yet. Any pointers welcome!

An infinitely divisible fluid subject to some energy input (like a waterfall) gives rise to eddies. Statistically averaging out an eddy would miss the point! To predict the eddies numerically you would have know the state on a grid of points - "discretising the equations". This would enable predictions with limited life. To increase the durability of the prediction you could refine the grid, but it turned out that as the number of grid points was increased indefinitely, the life of the prediction converged to a finite number. Beyond that life, prediction would be impossible, just from the nature of the equations. In other words, however closely-spaced the grid is, the unknown variations between one grid point and the next would progressively introduce uncertainty on larger & larger scales as time went on, and reach the largest scale in a finite time.

In practice, fluids are made of molecules, so once you have exact data on every molecule, there would be nothing unknown. That's all I meant by "atomism". But molecules are governed by quantum theory, so exact knowledge of the state is ruled out by Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle instead. (Most physicists believe that it's not just that the experimenter lacking knowledge, in effect Nature doesn't know either).

A water molecule landing anywhere in the basin of a river will (if it doesn't evaporate etc.!) finish up flowing through the mouth of the river. That's one example of how structure leads to convergence. It's the quasi-static data (the geography of the basin) not the dynamic data (initial position and velocity of all the water molecules) that determines the broad-brush outcome.

What is "natura naturans"? Nature being Nature?

I am the last person to advise of how to put a diagram into a post, but I bet somebody else here knows how to do it.

Natura naturans is the workings of nature as compared with all the differentiated things of nature i.e. natura naturata.Reference Spinoza.

Your example (of how the geography of the river basin affects the outcome for any given molecule) is a good example of what 'causal circumstances' means. The dynamic data would then be an example of causal chain effect; and that is why causal chain effect is incomplete as a description of determinism, because the reality of nature is there are always causal circumstances.

Among the complexities of causal chains and causal circumstances there is no way that Free Will can sneak into effects. LaPlace's comment applies to the molecule affected by the complex river basin as well as to the initial data about its projected inertia.

[henry quirk]

Save it as a jpeg to your machine (gifs work too).

Click the attachments tab connected to the posting field (mine shows up at the bottom of the field).

add files will appear: click it.

I can't advise further becuz the menus you'll open after you click add files will differ from *mine.

DEDEDE83-E303-4DEF-8A16-49D1D1B79702.jpeg

voila!

-----

*I put together a screenshot walk-thru but won't it post cuz each shot is 'too big'.

I'm usin' an old Ipad for posting that limits photo post size (sumthin' I've learned to work within).

If you're usin' a pc you ought not labor with those restrictions.

And you probably won't get sumthin' like this...

DEDEDE83-E303-4DEF-8A16-49D1D1B79702.jpeg (59.19 KiB) Viewed 10 times

...attached to the bottom of your diagram.

[Terrapin Station]

What is an event or process.

changing relations.

Can there just be process?

No.

Doesn't there have to be something that acts for there to be an event or process?

There are somethings, plural, yes (that in compound comprise what we abstract as a single "thing" like a brain). Brains are comprised of parts that are dynamic relations with other parts.

[RCSaunders]

What is an event or process.

changing relations.

Can there just be process?

No.

Doesn't there have to be something that acts for there to be an event or process?

There are somethings, plural, yes (that in compound comprise what we abstract as a single "thing" like a brain). Brains are comprised of parts that are dynamic relations with other parts.

Yes, that's right. But since you know that is the case, I don't know what your original disagreement was.

You wrote:

Actually as far as we can tell, every entity, possibly excluding elementary particles if there are such things, are events or processes.

If events are what "parts" do relative to each other those parts cannot be events. There must be something with some attributes that do something else there is no process of event, even if it is only the behavior of the entities themselves.

Since every event is something acting, the suggestion that things are themselves just events means an event would be, "something acting which is acting," which drops. "something," making the notion a floating abstraction.

[Belinda]

Thanks for that Henry. PS your order and chaos illustration is excellent.

[Terrapin Station]

You wrote:

Actually as far as we can tell, every entity, possibly excluding elementary particles if there are such things, are events or processes.

If events are what "parts" do relative to each other those parts cannot be events.

Again, the possible exception is elementary particles (if there are such things). Otherwise, as far as we can tell, every other entity is comprised of multiple parts that are in dynamic relations.

There must be something with some attributes that do something else there is no process of event, even if it is only the behavior of the entities themselves.

I'm not sure I understand the above, but I'm simply saying that "objects," "entities," etc., with the possible exception of elementary particles (assuming there are some), are comprised of parts that are in motion with respect to the other parts. This includes brains. "Event" is a term for "happenings," for things in motion, for processes that are occurring, etc.

We say, for example, that a baseball bat strikes a ball--that's a thing doing something, but I'm pointing out that the baseball bat is lots of things doing something in the first place--it's lots of parts, down to molecules, atoms, etc that are in motion with respect to each other, and that's the only thing that makes it a baseball bat in the first place. The bat itself is a set of events that are continually occurring.