Determinism, free will, consciousness and emergent phenomena

[STT]

I am trying my best to avoid technicality to initiate a simple discussion about the fact that how a being like human can have free will considering the fact that its constitutes move deterministically. The basic idea is very simple. The particles, neurons inside brains in this case, interact with each other in a specific manner such that one can find a transformation of the original system to a new one where the particles in the transformed system behaves differently and simply. Transformed system is represented in specific manner where a quantity so called order parameter, the quantity which defines the state of the system, can be calculated very eas. The state of the system in our case is consciousness which emerged from huge number of interacting neurons. It would be easy to see that one can also find another system in which the state of system decide consciously as well. The key point is to have a system which can be conscious since making a conscious decision is only one step ahead. This also explain the difference between a philosophical zombie and a human being, you cannot have free will without consciousness. What do you think?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

So, if I understand you right, you are saying this:

Let there be some dynamic system S.

There exists some transformation T, such that T(S) => S’ where S’ is a second system.

S’ has some function, f, such that f(S’) = p where p is an “order parameter.” The mapping between S’ and p is bijective.

You then claim that p is the same thing as consciousness, and that we can therefore imagine a third system S’’ which is able to decide consciously.

 

[STT]

So, if I understand you right, you are saying this:

Let there be some dynamic system S.

There exists some transformation T, such that T(S) => S’ where S’ is a second system.

S’ has some function, f, such that f(S’) = p where p is an “order parameter.” The mapping between S’ and p is bijective.

You then claim that p is the same thing as consciousness, and that we can therefore imagine a third system S’’ which is able to decide consciously.

Yes, once you put the idea in mathematical form.

 

[SecretCatholic]

I am not getting how you can get free will from a deterministic physical system, including the brain. I have read many atheists which also don’t seem to find any way of harmonizing both of those and thus conclude that we do not have free will. This, I understand, is a big part of having a soul- it is needed for freedom of will.

I can see how systems can increase in complexity and gain new functions, but not how they can escape their own basic nature- their deterministic foundation.

Now if you are saying that the soul uses this physical phenomenon to function and as kind of a “feedback” loop, then that is a totally different matter. In this case, the trait of freedom of will comes not from the physical phenomenon but from the soul, which is normally actualized and expressed by physical phenomenon.

 

[Tomdstone]

I am not getting how you can get free will from a deterministic physical system,.

Deterministic factors might make up only a part of a given physical system.

 

[fisherman_carl]

I am not getting how you can get free will from a deterministic physical system, including the brain. I have read many atheists which also don’t seem to find any way of harmonizing both of those and thus conclude that we do not have free will. This, I understand, is a big part of having a soul- it is needed for freedom of will.

I can see how systems can increase in complexity and gain new functions, but not how they can escape their own basic nature- their deterministic foundation.

Now if you are saying that the soul uses this physical phenomenon to function and as kind of a “feedback” loop, then that is a totally different matter. In this case, the trait of freedom of will comes not from the physical phenomenon but from the soul, which is normally actualized and expressed by physical phenomenon.

Yes, some atheist philosophers conclude therefore that we don’t think about anything at all and that our consciousness is an illusion. While other atheist philosophers conclude there must be an immaterial mind to account for what we can all plainly see, that we really are contemplating things. One such atheist philosopher, dr. Edward Feser, realized this as well as studying St. Thomas Aquinas which helped put him back on the road to theism and Catholicism.

Consider an a.i. robot. It is simply a number of if then statements with cause and effect. It does not really contemplate anything on its own. It is not conscious. Instead it simulates those things like an advanced puppet. It is programmed to look like it is doing those things when all the while it is inanimate matter being pushed by the hand of a man.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Yes, some atheist philosophers conclude therefore that we don’t think about anything at all and that our consciousness is an illusion. While other atheist philosophers conclude there must be an immaterial mind to account for what we can all plainly see, that we really are contemplating things. One such atheist philosopher, dr. Edward Feser, realized this as well as studying St. Thomas Aquinas which helped put him back on the road to theism and Catholicism.

Consider an a.i. robot. It is simply a number of if then statements with cause and effect. It does not really contemplate anything on its own. It is not conscious. Instead it simulates those things like an advanced puppet. It is programmed to look like it is doing those things when all the while it is inanimate matter being pushed by the hand of a man.

Are you talking about Feser’s comments on incompossible forms? Because as far as I saw, he never answered the excellent summary of the issues with his position that were laid out by Tyrrell McAllister in the comments section.

 

[STT]

I am not getting how you can get free will from a deterministic physical system, including the brain. I have read many atheists which also don’t seem to find any way of harmonizing both of those and thus conclude that we do not have free will. This, I understand, is a big part of having a soul- it is needed for freedom of will.

The idea is to get consciousness in the first place then you can easily make free conscious decision. Think of superconductor for example. Electrons always repel each other in normal state but they attract each other in superconductor state. Superconductor state is in fact an emergent phenomena. The idea is parallel to what is explained in OP.

I can see how systems can increase in complexity and gain new functions, but not how they can escape their own basic nature- their deterministic foundation.

The idea is to find the proper transformation which allows us to convert a system with particles with a deterministic feature to another system with consciousness. This is only allowed if neurons interact with each other is very specific manner.

Now if you are saying that the soul uses this physical phenomenon to function and as kind of a “feedback” loop, then that is a totally different matter. In this case, the trait of freedom of will comes not from the physical phenomenon but from the soul, which is normally actualized and expressed by physical phenomenon.

That is not really the aim of this thread.

 

[Tomdstone]

Consider an a.i. robot… It is not conscious.

How would you know if an object was conscious or not?

 

[SecretCatholic]

Deterministic factors might make up only a part of a given physical system.

I’m not too keen on quantum indeterminacy, if that’s what you’re referring to. But regardless, these effects seem to become deterministic at larger scales, including that of the brain.

Yes, some atheist philosophers conclude therefore that we don’t think about anything at all and that our consciousness is an illusion. While other atheist philosophers conclude there must be an immaterial mind to account for what we can all plainly see, that we really are contemplating things.

Some atheist philosophers acknowledge consciousness, while rejecting free will. This seems to me a much more plausible claim.

Consider an a.i. robot. It is simply a number of if then statements with cause and effect. It does not really contemplate anything on its own. It is not conscious. Instead it simulates those things like an advanced puppet. It is programmed to look like it is doing those things when all the while it is inanimate matter being pushed by the hand of a man.

Doesn’t that somewhat beg the question? I mean, I don’t consider any of today’s AI to conscious, but at a level of sufficiently high complexity where responses become indistinguishable from that of a conscious agent, doesn’t this become the question?

One who does not believe in the soul can plausibly claim that we are nothing more than complex physical systems with several orders of complex interactions. And how do we, who believe in the soul, disprove that with probable certainty?

The idea is to get consciousness in the first place then you can easily make free conscious decision. Think of superconductor for example. Electrons always repel each other in normal state but they attract each other in superconductor state. Superconductor state is in fact an emergent phenomena. The idea is parallel to what is explained in OP.

Consciousness allows you to become aware of your awareness and to use that additional awareness to make choices, but this higher order of awareness does not automatically or magically make your choices undetermined or “free”. They are merely determined via a higher order of complexity.

The idea is to find the proper transformation which allows us to convert a system with particles with a deterministic feature to another system with consciousness. This is only allowed if neurons interact with each other is very specific manner.

As above, I’d argue that it is still a deterministic system, even at the level consciousness, albeit a higher level one.

I found a good page on this topic over here. It’s a fascinating topic, and I think it’s good to discuss, because it is important to consider. But probability indicates that no new option nor conclusion will come of this discussion.

 

[Tomdstone]

I’m not too keen on quantum indeterminacy, if that’s what you’re referring to. But regardless, these effects seem to become deterministic at larger scales, including that of the brain.

I doubt that all human activity is completely deterministic. Such would fly in the face of the widespread belief of personal moral responsibility.

 

[SecretCatholic]

I doubt that all human activity is completely deterministic. Such would fly in the face of the widespread belief of personal moral responsibility.

I don’t see how free will or true moral responsibility can hold if there is nothing but physical reality. I do believe in free will, but it is based upon my faith and trust in God and the soul he gives us.

Many widespread beliefs have been found lacking or simply untrue through systematic analysis of the data, whether via philosophical argumentation or the scientific method.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I am trying my best to avoid technicality to initiate a simple discussion about the fact that how a being like human can have free will considering the fact that its constitutes move deterministically. The basic idea is very simple. The particles, neurons inside brains in this case, interact with each other in a specific manner such that one can find a transformation of the original system to a new one where the particles in the transformed system behaves differently and simply. Transformed system is represented in specific manner where a quantity so called order parameter, the quantity which defines the state of the system, can be calculated very eas. The state of the system in our case is consciousness which emerged from huge number of interacting neurons. It would be easy to see that one can also find another system in which the state of system decide consciously as well. The key point is to have a system which can be conscious since making a conscious decision is only one step ahead. This also explain the difference between a philosophical zombie and a human being, you cannot have free will without consciousness. What do you think?

I think that you are not able to obtain that quantity (“so called order parameter”) which, according to you, “can be calculated very easy”.

 

[STT]

Consciousness allows you to become aware of your awareness and to use that additional awareness to make choices, but this higher order of awareness does not automatically or magically make your choices undetermined or “free”. They are merely determined via a higher order of complexity.

I agree that being mere conscious does not necessary make our choice free. That was I argue that the second transformation requires to make a system free and concsious at the same time.

As above, I’d argue that it is still a deterministic system, even at the level consciousness, albeit a higher level one.

I found a good page on this topic over here. It’s a fascinating topic, and I think it’s good to discuss, because it is important to consider. But probability indicates that no new option nor conclusion will come of this discussion.

I read that page long time ago. Thanks for sharing it.

 

[STT]

I think that you are not able to obtain that quantity (“so called order parameter”) which, according to you, “can be calculated very easy”.

Finding the order parameter and the transformation is very difficult. Calculating the order parameter once you know the transformation is easy.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Finding the order parameter and the transformation is very difficult. Calculating the order parameter once you know the transformation is easy.

And… Have you found the order parameter and the transformation already, or are you just fantasizing?

 

[cfauster]

I am trying my best to avoid technicality to initiate a simple discussion about the fact that how a being like human can have free will considering the fact that its constitutes move deterministically …

Two major, and different, responses come from physicists Stephen Barr and George Ellis. Both are Christians; Barr is Catholic.

In short, Barr says reality is not deterministic, and that humans (and God) have minds that are immaterial. For example, Barr writes:

In the first place, a purely materialistic conception of man cannot account for the human power of reason itself. If we are just “a pack of neurons,” in the words of Sir Francis Crick, if our mental life is nothing but electrical impulses in our nervous system, then one cannot explain the realm of abstract concepts, including those of theoretical science. Nor can one explain the human mind’s openness to truth, which is the foundation of all science. As Chesterton observed, the materialist cannot explain “why anything should go right, even observation and deduction. Why good logic should not be as misleading as bad logic, if they are both movements in the brain of a bewildered ape.” Scientific materialism exalts human reason, but cannot account for human reason.

Nor can materialism account for many other aspects of the human mind, such as consciousness, free will, and the very existence of a unitary self. In a purely material world such things cannot exist. Matter cannot be free. Matter cannot have a self. The materialist is thus driven to deny empirical facts–not the facts in front of his eyes, but, as it were, the facts behind his eyes: facts about his own mental life. He calls them illusions, or redefines them to be what they are not. In lowering himself to the level of the animal or the machine, the materialist ultimately denies his own status as a rational being, by reducing all his mental operations to instinct and programming.

Thus, like the pagan of old, the materialist ends up subjecting man to the subhuman. The pagan supernaturalist did so by raising the merely material to the level of spirit or the divine. The materialist does so by lowering what is truly spiritual or in the divine image to the level of matter. The results are much the same. The pagan said that his actions were controlled by the orbits of the planets and stars, the materialist says they are controlled by the orbits of the electrons in his brain. The pagan bowed down to animals or the likenesses of animals in worship, the materialist avers that he himself is no more than an animal. The pagan spoke of fate, the materialist speaks of physical determinism.

See also Barr’s essays at

bigquestionsonline.com/2012/07/10/does-quantum-physics-make-easier-believe-god/

firstthings.com/article/2007/03/faith-and-quantum-theory

Ellis, on the other hand, is a non-reductive physicalist (monist ?) who seems to eschew dualism more than does Barr. Ellis espouses emergence and top-down causation and thus - by a different route - ends up sharing with Barr a rejection of deterministic materialism.

A review of Ellis’ recent book is here.

 

[STT]

Two major, and different, responses come from physicists Stephen Barr and George Ellis. Both are Christians; Barr is Catholic.

In short, Barr says reality is not deterministic, and that humans (and God) have minds that are immaterial. For example, Barr writes:

In the first place, a purely materialistic conception of man cannot account for the human power of reason itself. If we are just “a pack of neurons,” in the words of Sir Francis Crick, if our mental life is nothing but electrical impulses in our nervous system, then one cannot explain the realm of abstract concepts, including those of theoretical science. Nor can one explain the human mind’s openness to truth, which is the foundation of all science. As Chesterton observed, the materialist cannot explain “why anything should go right, even observation and deduction. Why good logic should not be as misleading as bad logic, if they are both movements in the brain of a bewildered ape.” Scientific materialism exalts human reason, but cannot account for human reason.

Why cannot reason arises from pure matter? Do they have any argument for that?

Nor can materialism account for many other aspects of the human mind, such as consciousness, free will, and the very existence of a unitary self. In a purely material world such things cannot exist. Matter cannot be free. Matter cannot have a self. The materialist is thus driven to deny empirical facts–not the facts in front of his eyes, but, as it were, the facts behind his eyes: facts about his own mental life. He calls them illusions, or redefines them to be what they are not. In lowering himself to the level of the animal or the machine, the materialist ultimately denies his own status as a rational being, by reducing all his mental operations to instinct and programming.

Thus, like the pagan of old, the materialist ends up subjecting man to the subhuman. The pagan supernaturalist did so by raising the merely material to the level of spirit or the divine. The materialist does so by lowering what is truly spiritual or in the divine image to the level of matter. The results are much the same. The pagan said that his actions were controlled by the orbits of the planets and stars, the materialist says they are controlled by the orbits of the electrons in his brain. The pagan bowed down to animals or the likenesses of animals in worship, the materialist avers that he himself is no more than an animal. The pagan spoke of fate, the materialist speaks of physical determinism

Do they have any argument that free will cannot arises from matter?

See also Barr’s essays at

bigquestionsonline.com/2012/07/10/does-quantum-physics-make-easier-believe-god/

firstthings.com/article/2007/03/faith-and-quantum-theory

Ellis, on the other hand, is a non-reductive physicalist (monist ?) who seems to eschew dualism more than does Barr. Ellis espouses emergence and top-down causation and thus - by a different route - ends up sharing with Barr a rejection of deterministic materialism.

A review of Ellis’ recent book is here.

Thanks for the references.

 

[Tomdstone]

Why cannot reason arises from pure matter? Do they have any argument for that?

It seems that some animals have the ability to think at an elementary or lower level.

 

[STT]

It seems that some animals have the ability to think at an elementary or lower level.

Yes, and we say that they don’t have rational soul!