Philosophy Now Forum

Does free will exist? Michael Hauskeller reasons about reasons.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/81/Why_ ... snt_Starve

Perhaps in real life there aren’t any situations where the weighted reasons for a choice are equal.

I envisage the decision-making process in computer terms, where coarse-grained factors are considered first. If that does not resolve the issue, ie result in a preference towards one option over another, then finer-grained factors are considered, and so on. I can't see any reason that the number of levels would be limited, so if a decision is slow in coming, it (the brain) just keeps on considering finer-grained factors... If it can keep on doing this, then the odds are that eventually it would consider factors that aren't the same, and a preference, finally, emerges.

The ass won't stay undecided for long; this is a positive-feedback situation, and therefore highly unstable. The slightest breeze, causing the the smell of hay to be stronger from one pile than from the other, will cause the ass to turn his head, ever so slightly. Now he can see one pile better than the other. So he turns his head further towards it, now he can't see or smell the other one at all. So he ambles over and eats his fill.
Positive feedback is like an upside-down pyramid. I suspect a lot of our decisions are made in similar ways.

Surely, so long as Buridan keeps eating, his ass wont starve?

The way I reasoned this conundrum is that the ass looks to the left and to the right and back to the left and so on.
The casual factor for which one to pick starts in equilibrium, but already we know that the ass is considered first one then the other. Another casual factor increases in intensity: the anticipation of his hunger, and this grow stronger with each moment. As the ass look back and forth the hunger reaches a tipping point. It is a matter of no consequence which the ass chooses. It chooses the one it happens to be considering when the power of the causality that the hunger is pressing to the point of no return.
In a sense this moment is seemingly random to an observer, but is nonetheless determined by the moment in time that the right factors come into play. The stupid ass thinks he has made a free choice where in fact his choice is caused by his hunger.

In computer terms a loop is created where the left and right variable for the food alternates. In the middle of the loop is a conmditional. If hunger > x then eat.

1 if look = right then look = left goto 3
2 if look = left then look = right
3 Let hunger =hunger +1
4 if hunger > 75 eat the hay "look"
5 goto 1

Awesome!

So,if we are smart enough to create new reasons then we have free will.

Is "self-adaptations to situations" a symbol of free will?

ntadepalli wrote:So,if we are smart enough to create new reasons then we have free will.

Is "self-adaptations to situations" a symbol of free will?

Not a good argument.
oxygen and iron make rust. neither oxygen nor iron need a free will to do this.
2 ideas make a new idea in the same way

chaz wyman wrote:

ntadepalli wrote:So,if we are smart enough to create new reasons then we have free will.

Is "self-adaptations to situations" a symbol of free will?

Not a good argument.
oxygen and iron make rust. neither oxygen nor iron need a free will to do this.
2 ideas make a new idea in the same way

My thinking on self-adaptation :

* Self-adaptation is adaptation to social environment achieved through

changes in self.
* All influences involved in decision making are inputs to neuronal

processes of brain.The competing processes bring out the outcome

decision.
* If it is foreseen that this decision has undesirable consequences then
self-adaptation arises as an option.Self-adaptation is not easy either.

Now the choice is between earlier determined decision (with undesirable
anticipations) and the present option of self-adptation.
* The choice is just either-or deliberation based,not on causes but on

anticiations.

So whatever may be the choice,the consideration of self- adaptation as an

option makes the choice free.

chaz wyman wrote:The way I reasoned this conundrum is that the ass looks to the left and to the right and back to the left and so on.

You'll need to explain the ass's decision to look first to a particular side.

ughaibu wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:The way I reasoned this conundrum is that the ass looks to the left and to the right and back to the left and so on.

You'll need to explain the ass's decision to look first to a particular side.

No really. It is impossible for the bails of hay to be EXACTLY the same distance apart.
The ass will already be on a determined course when it encounters first one, and then another bail.

ntadepalli wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

ntadepalli wrote:So,if we are smart enough to create new reasons then we have free will.

Is "self-adaptations to situations" a symbol of free will?

Not a good argument.
oxygen and iron make rust. neither oxygen nor iron need a free will to do this.
2 ideas make a new idea in the same way

My thinking on self-adaptation :

* Self-adaptation is adaptation to social environment achieved through

changes in self.
* All influences involved in decision making are inputs to neuronal

processes of brain.The competing processes bring out the outcome

decision.
* If it is foreseen that this decision has undesirable consequences then
self-adaptation arises as an option.Self-adaptation is not easy either.

Now the choice is between earlier determined decision (with undesirable
anticipations) and the present option of self-adptation.
* The choice is just either-or deliberation based,not on causes but on

anticiations.

So whatever may be the choice,the consideration of self- adaptation as an

option makes the choice free.

OR not.

Neuro-science has shown that decisions are made by the brain before a conscious choice has been registered.

chaz wyman wrote:It is impossible for the bails of hay to be EXACTLY the same distance apart.

You're not engaging with the question, you're restating the conditions in a way that avoids the issue.

ughaibu wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:It is impossible for the bails of hay to be EXACTLY the same distance apart.

You're not engaging with the question, you're restating the conditions in a way that avoids the issue.

No. The ass must encounter the bails one after the other.

chaz wyman wrote:No. The ass must encounter the bails one after the other.

We could offer the ass a choice between a small pile of rotting hay that it can reach by walking over a field of sharp stones and a large pile of fresh hay immediately to hand, but there wouldn't be much interest in such a question. Likewise, restating the conditions so that the question varies only as a matter of degree, from the above, is to change an interesting question into an uninteresting one. So, you either engage with the interesting question or you dont engage at all, as uninteresting questions aren't, you know, interesting.
Besides which, your contention is false. The ass can be trained to recognise certain coloured boxes as containers of specified amounts of hay. It can be wheeled on in a contraption which keeps its head pointing equally at both boxes, etc.