Free will and consciousness - What are they?

[LordOfWizards]

A discussion about a book examining consciousness in the Book discussion thread got a bit derailed. So we need to move it here. @CrazyKB suggested the title "Damn brain, why do keep screwing me up!, the haphazard construction of the human mind"

There was a lot of material in the book thread. I will leave it up to you guys to either transfer what you'd like to put here, or even start over.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

Nicholas Humphrey, Mark Solms (see my two recent reviews), Julian Baggini on free will. That's where to begin!

 

[HareBrain]

A couple of old threads on this subject:

Does free will exist? (22 pages!)

The mystery of consciousness (includes link to great Guardian article)

 

[Stephen Palmer]

PS.

The best books that explain the mystery of consciousness

Stephen Palmer shares the 5 best books on that explain the mystery of consciousness. Have you read The Inner Eye?

shepherd.com

 

[LordOfWizards]

A couple of old threads on this subject:

Does free will exist? (22 pages!)

The mystery of consciousness (includes link to great Guardian article)

I did find "The mystery of consciousness" and replied to it before I started this one. @CrazyKB is a new member. I suggested the old ones also but he wanted a new thread. So hopefully this will work.

 

[LordOfWizards]

Nicholas Humphrey, Mark Solms (see my two recent reviews), Julian Baggini on free will. That's where to begin!

I'm lazy. Can you provide a link?

 

[CrazyKB]

Here's a video related to our conscious experience. It could be an interesting place to start a dialogue. You can start at time index 23:30, it discusses Jordan Peterson's views and how they're contrasted by others. I found the whole video interesting, however if you're only interested in the topic at hand begin at the aforementioned time index. It begins with a good Star Trek episode. His magazine Skeptic is also worth a read.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Consciousness :
We can diferentiate 2 types of consciousness:
1) awareness of our body and our surroundings as provided by our senses and transformed into an internal representation.
Most animals have this kind of awareness, even insects.
2) consciousness of our internal mental states: we are aware of what we know and of the limits of our mind and ability to solve problems.
I am sure some animals share this trait with humans ( most of the mammals, and some birds like crows)

Free will ,
This is a tricky one. From a physics standpoint, we are finite-state machines. We are automata. So there is no free will
From another perspective we can establish free will establishes from consciousness.
Assume you are sick ( a cold). Some random person tells you to choose between two pills to feel better, but you don't know which pill to take.
Then assume the same person comes to you later and explains :
- The first pill is a hallucinogen, so , yes you will feel better for a short period of time and the feel as ill as now when the dose is over.
- The second pill is an antibiotic and will kill the bacteria.
With the new information, some people might choose the first ( someone whose depression is worse than the cold) and another the other. In this sense, there is free will because we are able to analyze our bodily and mental states and act to optimize them.
This would signal drug addicts as people with a very low free will ( and considerably miserable and short lives).
Sidenote: I am not against recreative drugs, just against getting addicted to them, maybe in the future we'll have recrative drugs which do not cause addiction or undesirable side-effects.

 

[CrazyKB]

Consciousness :
We can diferentiate 2 types of consciousness:
1) awareness of our body and our surroundings as provided by our senses and transformed into an internal representation.
Most animals have this kind of awareness, even insects.
2) consciousness of our internal mental states: we are aware of what we know and of the limits of our mind and ability to solve problems.
I am sure some animals share this trait with humans ( most of the mammals, and some birds like crows)

Free will ,
This is a tricky one. From a physics standpoint, we are finite-state machines. We are automata. So there is no free will
From another perspective we can establish free will establishes from consciousness.
Assume you are sick ( a cold). Some random person tells you to choose between two pills to feel better, but you don't know which pill to take.
Then assume the same person comes to you later and explains :
- The first pill is a hallucinogen, so , yes you will feel better for a short period of time and the feel as ill as now when the dose is over.
- The second pill is an antibiotic and will kill the bacteria.
With the new information, some people might choose the first ( someone whose depression is worse than the cold) and another the other. In this sense, there is free will because we are able to analyze our bodily and mental states and act to optimize them.
This would signal drug addicts as people with a very low free will ( and considerably miserable and short lives).
Sidenote: I am not against recreative drugs, just against getting addicted to them, maybe in the future we'll have recrative drugs which do not cause addiction or undesirable side-effects.

When you say 'we' have free will I'm assuming you're referring to your conscious self (the one who is reading this)? Also, I doubt that we'll ever have drugs that have no addictive properties. All substances that provide pleasure have the possibility of creating addictions, even if those addictions are only psychological.

 

[CultureCitizen]

When you say 'we' have free will I'm assuming you're referring to your conscious self (the one who is reading this)? Also, I doubt that we'll ever have drugs that have no addictive properties. All substances that provide pleasure have the possibility of creating addictions, even if those addictions are only psychological.

We just need to synthesize endorphins artificially and we will get out-of-the-box drugs with minimum side-effects.
I've heard sport addiction might be related to endorphins... but from my personal experience with exercise, I find the addictive effect mild at best.

Endorphins: What They Are and How to Boost Them

Endorphins are chemicals or hormones that your body releases when it feels pain or stress. Endorphins can be boosted by exercising, eating or having sex.

my.clevelandclinic.org

 

[CrazyKB]

We just need to synthesize endorphins artificially and we will get out-of-the-box drugs with minimum side-effects.
I've heard sport addiction might be related to endorphins... but from my personal experience with exercise, I find the addictive effect mild at best.

Endorphins: What They Are and How to Boost Them

Endorphins are chemicals or hormones that your body releases when it feels pain or stress. Endorphins can be boosted by exercising, eating or having sex.

my.clevelandclinic.org

I'm not an expert, however If you overstimulate receptors, in this case endorphin receptors artificially, that could also lead to problems. Not to mention, the drugs that people use recreationally affect other brain areas.

 

[CultureCitizen]

I'm not an expert, however If you overstimulate receptors, in this case endorphin receptors artificially, that could also lead to problems. Not to mention, the drugs that people use recreationally affect other brain areas.

Well yes they could, but we won't know for sure until the actual tests are done, we know very little of brain chemestry and chemical pathways in the body. Who knows maybe we'll be able to create some substance that slowly degrades. Or something like the old pop-sci article : happiness is a warm electrode... so no durgs, just electric current as in Lary Niven's novels.

Happiness is a Warm Electrode

In the middle of room #11 in the Cleveland Clinic's surgical center, Diane Hire lies on an operating table, the back half of her shaven head hidden behind a plastic curtain. Four pins, one driven into either side of her forehead, the other two in back, hold a titanium halo fast to her skull. An...

www.popsci.com

 

[CrazyKB]

Well yes they could, but we won't know for sure until the actual tests are done, we know very little of brain chemestry and chemical pathways in the body. Who knows maybe we'll be able to create some substance that slowly degrades. Or something like the old pop-sci article : happiness is a warm electrode... so no durgs, just electric current as in Lary Niven's novels.

Happiness is a Warm Electrode

In the middle of room #11 in the Cleveland Clinic's surgical center, Diane Hire lies on an operating table, the back half of her shaven head hidden behind a plastic curtain. Four pins, one driven into either side of her forehead, the other two in back, hold a titanium halo fast to her skull. An...

www.popsci.com

Yes, however the effects of a drug (or electrical stimulation) would still have the potential to create withdrawal. For example, Marijuana doesn't have bad withdrawal, since it stays in your system for a while which helps mitigate withdrawal, as the brain 'resets itself'. The only difference between an electric current and a drug, as far as stimulation of the brain is concerned is the delivery method. Drugs act on receptors that increase or decrease their firing rates, direct stimulation would do the same thing without the need of a molecule (synthetic or otherwise) to bind with specific receptors. I hope I never see people walking around with electrodes strapped to their heads. I'll just take a hit off my dry herb vaporizer.

 

[Wayne Mack]

From a physics standpoint, we are finite-state machines. We are automata. So there is no free will

I'm not sure that having a finite number of states implies lack of free will. One also must consider which state transitions are made. If and only if a single transition from state A to another state is possible or that the specific state transition is determined by some outside entity or force (essentially the same as the first premise), can one assert a lack of internal choice in deciding what happens.

 

[CultureCitizen]

I'm not sure that having a finite number of states implies lack of free will. One also must consider which state transitions are made. If and only if a single transition from state A to another state is possible or that the specific state transition is determined by some outside entity or force (essentially the same as the first premise), can one assert a lack of internal choice in deciding what happens.

The claim is that given a state and the same inputs the outputs will be the same. That's how a FSM machine behaves.
But the catch is a FSM can alter its own state so that given the same inputs the output will be different.
That is a trait that both humans and deep nets share: they learn from experience and change their behavior.
That's the difference between humans and deep nets, and a static mechanism ( e.g a clock or a thermostat).

The no-free-will argument states that if we rolled back time we would make the exact same choices, except maybe , because the cumulative effect of some quantum variation.

 

[CrazyKB]

The claim is that given a state and the same inputs the outputs will be the same. That's how a FSM machine behaves.
But the catch is a FSM can alter its own state so that given the same inputs the output will be different.
That is a trait that both humans and deep nets share: they learn from experience and change their behavior.
That's the difference between humans and deep nets, and a static mechanism ( e.g a clock or a thermostat).

The no-free-will argument states that if we rolled back time we would make the exact same choices, except maybe , because the cumulative effect of some quantum variation.

There's growing evidence in Neuroscience that freewill is an illusion. The old view was that the brain would send options up to consciousness (options A or B), then the conscious part of you makes the choice (free will). However, the data suggests that the options and more importantly the choice are selected before you're aware of it. Thus, it appears that we have no freewill. I also believe that if you 'rolled back time' the same choice would be made because the data the brain used to make the choice would be the same. However, that doesn't mean that we'd make the same choice again at a later date. For example, if you learn new ideas that change the way you think about a similar situation, you (or more specially your brain) may make a different choice when confronted with said situation.

 

[Wayne Mack]

I find that I am not following the logic of this argument. To me, being deterministic is equivalent to lacking free choice.

From a physics standpoint, we are finite-state machines. We are automata. So there is no free will

I interpreted the precondition of a finite-state machine as merely meaning there are a fixed number of possible states. I am not seeing, though, the step that shows, from the viewpoint of physics, that the state transitions are deterministic. How does physics indicate that humans are deterministic and do not affect their own outcomes?

 

[LordOfWizards]

All substances that provide pleasure have the possibility of creating addictions, even if those addictions are only psychological.

I disagree. these "drugs" have been shown to cure addictions in the majority of test subjects.

This is from Google "Scholar".

https://pharmrev.aspetjournals.org/content/68/2/264.short

From the article:
"Psychedelics (serotonergic hallucinogens) are powerful psychoactive substances that alter perception and mood and affect numerous cognitive processes. They are generally considered physiologically safe and do not lead to dependence or addiction."

 

[Astro Pen]

Writing a story I had to give this issue considerable thought. I was not happy with what I read up at the time. So I tried to brainstorm it as a creature who theoretically has both consciousness and free will. This is what I thought at the time. I will check out the references above when I get the time.

If you want to comprehend the impression of free will, you need to combine 2 things.
Time and quantum probability:

1. You cannot change the past because the probability wave for all quantum events in it have already collapsed to one. It is now locked.
2. The future contains quadrillions of unresolved quantum events probabilities So the exact future is unknown and indeed technically unknowable.
3. The 'now' events are the exact point of probability wave collapse.

Free will, regarding what you do, appears to be free will as you perform deductive operations on the vastly complex world model in your head.
Your decisions are broadly calculated but precise outcomes are never assured, and cannot be.
You make meta calculations but the micro is always a dice roll down at the neuron trigger point level.

On the consciousness issue you have got me at the "Is 'redness' a real thing when it is outside your body or is it just a 430 terahertz wave?"
I don't know, but I suspect it is a product of the model in our heads and that, alone, is where it lives. Can a digital model feel redness rather than simply detecting the light frequency. I suspect not.
Consciousness is the dynamic of the model of specialised regions in the soft machine Visual cortex, endocrine system, frontal lobes brain stem hemisphere difference etc . Which is a billion string cats cradle. a stunning feat of parallel processing.

 

[HareBrain]

It's pretty simple as far as I can work out.

You don't choose your thoughts.**

Since decisions are thoughts (or results of reflex) how can you then have free will?

**Or to be more complete, you don't choose the initial one of a chain of thoughts.