DavidMcC wrote:So, according to Jerry, the laws of physics prevent us from making deliberate, conscious decisions!
What an old chestnut!
It got a bit tedious

Hee, hee. At what point did you 'decide' it had gotten tedious? How long after it had gotten tedious did you hang on, hoping it would get more interesting? Was it after you switched it off? That may not be an old chestnut, but it's still a bit of a tough nut to crack.

It's not that I disagree that people can be aware of what they're doing (what you'd call conscious, or free of habit and instinct). But you really do beg the question by reifying the notion of 'decisions', which if you think about it, are not very thing-like.

So what you're saying is either tautologically clear (that a decision occurs when somebody decides) or it is not clear at all what you're trying to point out. Is there any specialist in human behavior that pretends as much as you do that human behavior is so cut and dried?

For example, how about deciding not to act, assuming you had the impulse to do so? Can one really do that? At what point do you know that you've decided not to act? Can you retract the decision and make a decision to act? How many times in an hour can you do this? How much should one deliberate before the decision not to act has been made? If you live your life like this, trying to deliberate consciously, it's no fucking wonder if you never get anything done.

Your mantra about 'conscious deliberation and decision' looks like nothing more than something you repeat, as if you think if you repeat it often enough, somebody's going to accept it unthinkingly, and without deliberation.

I'm not arguing against regarding normal human behavior as being other than completely spontaneous all the time. But you know all too well that 'normal' implies a variance, so one could ask you what a 'normal' decision-making capacity looks like to you.

Cito di Pense wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:So, according to Jerry, the laws of physics prevent us from making deliberate, conscious decisions!
What an old chestnut!
It got a bit tedious

Hee, hee. At what point did you 'decide' it had gotten tedious? Was it after you switched it off? That may not be an old chestnut, but it's still a bit of a tough nut to crack.

It's not that I disagree that people can be aware of what they're doing (what you'd call conscious, or free of habit and instinct). But you really do beg the question by reifying the notion of 'decisions', which if you think about it, are not very thing-like.

So what you're saying is either tautologically clear (that a decision occurs when somebody decides) or it is not clear at all what you're trying to point out.

For example, how about deciding not to act, assuming you had the impulse to do so? Can one really do that? At what point do you know that you've decided not to act? Can you retract the decision and make a decision to act? How many times in an hour can you do this? How much should one deliberate before the decision not to act has been made? If you live your life like this, trying to deliberate consciously, it's no fucking wonder if you never get anything done.

Your mantra about 'conscious deliberation and decision' looks like nothing more than something you repeat, as if you think if you repeat it often enough, somebody's going to accept it unthinkingly, and without deliberation.

Mantras?? WTF are you talking about? Have you never heard of the pre-frontal cortex (PFC) - the part of the brain that makes decisions? No reification required.

DavidMcC wrote:
Mantras?? WTF are you talking about? Have you never heard of the pre-frontal cortex (PFC) - the part of the brain that makes decisions? No reification required.

Cut the shuck, Mother Duck. I didn't ask you where it happens. I asked you when it happens. You can tell me all about the LIbet experiments again, if you like. And I asked you specifically about when a negative decision, or an inhibition happens.

And I asked you when you had decided it had all gotten so tedious. But you know fuck-all about that.

DavidMcC wrote:
Mantras?? WTF are you talking about? Have you never heard of the pre-frontal cortex (PFC) - the part of the brain that makes decisions? No reification required.

Is it the conscious mind or the PFC that makes your decisions? Are they one and the same??
No, wait, the NCC is the TC loops, isn't it? So is that what makes your decisions? Tricky isn't it?

GrahamH wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:
Mantras?? WTF are you talking about? Have you never heard of the pre-frontal cortex (PFC) - the part of the brain that makes decisions? No reification required.

Is it the conscious mind or the PFC that makes your decisions? Are they one and the same??
No, wait, the NCC is the TC loops, isn't it? So is that what makes your decisions? Tricky isn't it?

No, I never said that the TC loops made decisions, only that they allow you to be conscious of some sensory input that may have been fleeting This would enable you to form memories, which, in turn, enable conscious decisions to be made on the basis of what you remember. So, not that tricky, after all, eh?

DavidMcC wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:
Mantras?? WTF are you talking about? Have you never heard of the pre-frontal cortex (PFC) - the part of the brain that makes decisions? No reification required.

Is it the conscious mind or the PFC that makes your decisions? Are they one and the same??
No, wait, the NCC is the TC loops, isn't it? So is that what makes your decisions? Tricky isn't it?

No, I never said that the TC loops made decisions, only that they allow you to be conscious of some sensory input that may have been fleeting This would enable you to form memories, which, in turn, enable conscious decisions to be made on the basis of what you remember. So, not that tricky, after all, eh?

You do seem confused. Is it consciousness that decides, or the PFC, or is the PC the NCC today? What is consciously deciding?
You seem to think there is a conscious bit and a deciding bit that maybe cooperate a bit.

romansh wrote:

John Platko wrote:
It's the combination of radom noise fulfilling your constraints that is your free will, according to Tse.

I thought you thought random does not exist?

It comes in and out of fashion for me. But it's definitely in for Tse.

John Platko wrote:Back to my question.
Do you think of thermal noise as being deterministic?

Does it matter if my will is formed by deterministic or indeterministic mechanisms?

It matters at least as far as what badge you get to wear to the convention.

But play nice, do you think thermal noise is deterministic?

GrahamH wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:
Mantras?? WTF are you talking about? Have you never heard of the pre-frontal cortex (PFC) - the part of the brain that makes decisions? No reification required.

Is it the conscious mind or the PFC that makes your decisions? Are they one and the same??
No, wait, the NCC is the TC loops, isn't it? So is that what makes your decisions? Tricky isn't it?

No, I never said that the TC loops made decisions, only that they allow you to be conscious of some sensory input that may have been fleeting This would enable you to form memories, which, in turn, enable conscious decisions to be made on the basis of what you remember. So, not that tricky, after all, eh?

You do seem confused. Is it consciousness that decides, or the PFC, or is the PC the NCC today? What is consciously deciding?
You seem to think there is a conscious bit and a deciding bit that maybe cooperate a bit.

Well, I only seem to think that to a confused responder. Did you even read my last post? Apparently not, because I have always distinguished between the "loops of C" (TC looops) and making decisions (the most important function of the PFC). Maybe you are the one having a problem.

DavidMcC wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Is it the conscious mind or the PFC that makes your decisions? Are they one and the same??
No, wait, the NCC is the TC loops, isn't it? So is that what makes your decisions? Tricky isn't it?

No, I never said that the TC loops made decisions, only that they allow you to be conscious of some sensory input that may have been fleeting This would enable you to form memories, which, in turn, enable conscious decisions to be made on the basis of what you remember. So, not that tricky, after all, eh?

You do seem confused. Is it consciousness that decides, or the PFC, or is the PC the NCC today? What is consciously deciding?
You seem to think there is a conscious bit and a deciding bit that maybe cooperate a bit.

Well, I only seem to think that to a confused responder. Did you even read my last post? Apparently not, because I have always distinguished between the "loops of C" (TC looops) and making decisions (the most important function of the PFC). Maybe you are the one having a problem.

That's exactly your problem. You have consciousness in one bout of the brain and decision making in another. If you were correct it would follow that decisions are not made by consciousness as you say they are made by the PFC. Take some time. Think it through.

GrahamH wrote:

John Platko wrote:
As for how metastability effects computer timing, that is also well understood and non controversial.

Indeed it is, and I hope you understand that digital are designed with setup and hold times to ensure that your PC doesn't crash every few seconds. What you failed to show was any significance to program execution in normal use such that it affects program output is some constructive way.

I think I explained that rather clearly. PRNG seeds set by real time will vary because these synchronization effects will vary. So if you reset your computer to factor fresh settings and pretend it's like the first time and all, you'll get different answers.

What Tse failed to do was to show that thermal effects in synapses or whatever have tangible constructive effects on decisions

He showed how the thermal effects, effect the neurons firing. It's impossible to show how that leads to a given decision because nobody knows how the brain works. Unlike my metastability example where we can show in detail how that can lead to a different decision.

archibald wrote:

John Platko wrote:Well maybe we'll make more progress if we start there. Tell us exactly how free will would have to work for you to consider it genuine, made in Archibald, free will?

On second thoughts, you're familiar with Jerry Coyne's version, I think?

That's close to mine, I believe.

What do you think of that one? Of itself, I mean. We don't have to discuss all the stuff he thinks about why people believe in it. We don't have to discuss whether you agree that's what free will is to you, or what it should be labelled as. Just embrace his, or my, definition and take on it, temporarily. Do you think there is such a thing as that type of free will?

Basically, it's conscious for starters, well it is for me. Even Tse and others seem to agree that unconscious free will is not much worth having.

Unconscious free will is often very useful and desirable. For example, riffing on an instrument can be unconscious and free willed - and rather enjoyable.

It's also more than merely freedom from determinism. It's not just doing otherwise (I agree we can do that),

Well that's a big concession. That's the part that's usually the sticky part. Once you agree we can do otherwise all that's left to gripe about is that we don't understand how the mind works.

it's not just choosing to do otherwise (I agree we can do that), it's consciously, freely, willing to choose to do otherwise.

I don't understand why this conscious part is so important to people. Embrace all of yourself, I say - you are what your conscious and unconscious are, and some more meat and potatoes too. Wanting completely conscious free will is wanting complete consciousness - I don't see any evidence that brains can work that way.

Moreover, it's 'you' doing it. This is, by and large, what most people seem to experience it as on a day-to-day basis. It's also one reason why moral responsibility is applied in societies:

Your unconscious is you too - deal with it.

ETA: I don't mind, for example, if you say you don't think we have it but that it doesn't matter, perhaps because it's incoherent or stupid or just unnecessary. Also, the implications of having or not having it can be a secondary consideration too. Maybe there aren't any serious ones. Also, we don't need to get into whether it's possible or not. We can agree that it isn't impossible, subject to someone explaining how it can be.

We don't need to do Jerry's video point by point. It's almost an hour long I think. If you get the gist of it.....well then....in a nutshell, I think I'd LOVE a one word answer, to start with, to the question, 'do you think we have this type of free will?'.

Obviously, you don't have to relinquish anything about your sort of free will. At all.

I'll watch Jerry again when I get some time later. I agree we should cover him point by point.

But if it's all about your conscious self must be the only driver of the bus then I'm not sure we have that kind of free will.

Ok, still waiting for everybody's answer to come in.

Is thermal noise deterministic? (must it be the way it is?)

Cito?
Archibald?
GrahamH?
Romansh?
DavidMcC

How about this.
If yes, what are the implications?
If no, what are the implications?

You don't actually need people to answer to make your point.

John Platko wrote:Is thermal noise deterministic? (must it be the way it is?)

Must it be the way it is? What way is that, my friend? Why, the way it IS, of course.

You want to answer the question, "Is thermal noise deterministic?" You want to WHAT, girlfriend?!?!?!



Must it be the way it is? Instead of asking that one first, let's set it aside for the moment and first ask, how big is it? With a few dropped names and punny references to the literature, you should see your way clear at least to admitting it must be as big as it is, of course with some variance. Then you can ask whether the variance must be the way it is. You go, girlfriend.

How big is it? You can ask, "Must it be that big, or are you just glad to see me?"

John Platko wrote:

archibald wrote:

John Platko wrote:Well maybe we'll make more progress if we start there. Tell us exactly how free will would have to work for you to consider it genuine, made in Archibald, free will?

On second thoughts, you're familiar with Jerry Coyne's version, I think?

That's close to mine, I believe.

What do you think of that one? Of itself, I mean. We don't have to discuss all the stuff he thinks about why people believe in it. We don't have to discuss whether you agree that's what free will is to you, or what it should be labelled as. Just embrace his, or my, definition and take on it, temporarily. Do you think there is such a thing as that type of free will?

Basically, it's conscious for starters, well it is for me. Even Tse and others seem to agree that unconscious free will is not much worth having.

Unconscious free will is often very useful and desirable. For example, riffing on an instrument can be unconscious and free willed - and rather enjoyable.

It's also more than merely freedom from determinism. It's not just doing otherwise (I agree we can do that),

Well that's a big concession. That's the part that's usually the sticky part. Once you agree we can do otherwise all that's left to gripe about is that we don't understand how the mind works.

it's not just choosing to do otherwise (I agree we can do that), it's consciously, freely, willing to choose to do otherwise.

I don't understand why this conscious part is so important to people. Embrace all of yourself, I say - you are what your conscious and unconscious are, and some more meat and potatoes too. Wanting completely conscious free will is wanting complete consciousness - I don't see any evidence that brains can work that way.

Moreover, it's 'you' doing it. This is, by and large, what most people seem to experience it as on a day-to-day basis. It's also one reason why moral responsibility is applied in societies:

Your unconscious is you too - deal with it.

ETA: I don't mind, for example, if you say you don't think we have it but that it doesn't matter, perhaps because it's incoherent or stupid or just unnecessary. Also, the implications of having or not having it can be a secondary consideration too. Maybe there aren't any serious ones. Also, we don't need to get into whether it's possible or not. We can agree that it isn't impossible, subject to someone explaining how it can be.

We don't need to do Jerry's video point by point. It's almost an hour long I think. If you get the gist of it.....well then....in a nutshell, I think I'd LOVE a one word answer, to start with, to the question, 'do you think we have this type of free will?'.

Obviously, you don't have to relinquish anything about your sort of free will. At all.

I'll watch Jerry again when I get some time later. I agree we should cover him point by point.

But if it's all about your conscious self must be the only driver of the bus then I'm not sure we have that kind of free will.

Oh John. You had the chance to be my internet hero and you blew it, for yourself and for all the rational skeptics who would have revered you hereafter.

Let me answer for you.

No.

Jerry's Coyne's Free Will does not, as far as anyone can tell, exist and we don't as far as can be ascertained, have it. That's because it's arguably incoherent, ridiculous, probably impossible and likely to cause mayhem if it ever did exist. It's too high a bar. It's an unreasonable definition in that sense.

There. See how easy it could have been?

felltoearth wrote:How about this.
If yes, what are the implications?

If yes, then Tse's mechanism for non determinism is non existent.

If no, what are the implications?

Then is all the fuss over doubting free will?

You don't actually need people to answer to make your point.

It's more like it's an important point for us to agree on before moving on.

What's your answer?

GrahamH wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:
No, I never said that the TC loops made decisions, only that they allow you to be conscious of some sensory input that may have been fleeting This would enable you to form memories, which, in turn, enable conscious decisions to be made on the basis of what you remember. So, not that tricky, after all, eh?

You do seem confused. Is it consciousness that decides, or the PFC, or is the PC the NCC today? What is consciously deciding?
You seem to think there is a conscious bit and a deciding bit that maybe cooperate a bit.

Well, I only seem to think that to a confused responder. Did you even read my last post? Apparently not, because I have always distinguished between the "loops of C" (TC looops) and making decisions (the most important function of the PFC). Maybe you are the one having a problem.

That's exactly your problem. You have consciousness in one bout of the brain and decision making in another. If you were correct it would follow that decisions are not made by consciousness as you say they are made by the PFC. Take some time. Think it through.

How do you manage to get everything in such a muddle, Graham? I thought it through yesrs ago, Graham., and without your help.
I case you didn't realise, the PFC is one of the cortical regions serviced by the TC loops, and it happens to be the main decision maker. Thus, I am not claiming a complete separation between TC loops and the PFC - the PFC is wired in to the TC loops, just like other cortical regions.
No doubt, you'll find a way of misinterpretting that as well.

Cito di Pense wrote:

John Platko wrote:Is thermal noise deterministic? (must it be the way it is?)

Must it be the way it is? What way is that, my friend? Why, the way it IS, of course.

exactly!

You want to answer the question, "Is thermal noise deterministic?" You want to WHAT, girlfriend?!?!?!

I don't want to answer the question, I want you to answer the question.

Must it be the way it is? Instead of asking that one first, let's set it aside for the moment and first ask, how big is it? With a few dropped names and punny references to the literature, you should see your way clear at least to admitting it must be as big as it is, of course with some variance. Then you can ask whether the variance must be the way it is. You go, girlfriend.

How big is it? You can ask, "Must it be that big, or are you just glad to see me?"

No. , I just want to know if thermal noise is deterministic. Or to put it another way, can it be otherwise? Is every bit of static a function of BigBang(t)?

It seems like a very important question for the topic at hand.

archibald wrote:

John Platko wrote:

archibald wrote:

John Platko wrote:Well maybe we'll make more progress if we start there. Tell us exactly how free will would have to work for you to consider it genuine, made in Archibald, free will?

On second thoughts, you're familiar with Jerry Coyne's version, I think?

That's close to mine, I believe.

What do you think of that one? Of itself, I mean. We don't have to discuss all the stuff he thinks about why people believe in it. We don't have to discuss whether you agree that's what free will is to you, or what it should be labelled as. Just embrace his, or my, definition and take on it, temporarily. Do you think there is such a thing as that type of free will?

Basically, it's conscious for starters, well it is for me. Even Tse and others seem to agree that unconscious free will is not much worth having.

Unconscious free will is often very useful and desirable. For example, riffing on an instrument can be unconscious and free willed - and rather enjoyable.

It's also more than merely freedom from determinism. It's not just doing otherwise (I agree we can do that),

Well that's a big concession. That's the part that's usually the sticky part. Once you agree we can do otherwise all that's left to gripe about is that we don't understand how the mind works.

it's not just choosing to do otherwise (I agree we can do that), it's consciously, freely, willing to choose to do otherwise.

I don't understand why this conscious part is so important to people. Embrace all of yourself, I say - you are what your conscious and unconscious are, and some more meat and potatoes too. Wanting completely conscious free will is wanting complete consciousness - I don't see any evidence that brains can work that way.

Moreover, it's 'you' doing it. This is, by and large, what most people seem to experience it as on a day-to-day basis. It's also one reason why moral responsibility is applied in societies:

Your unconscious is you too - deal with it.

ETA: I don't mind, for example, if you say you don't think we have it but that it doesn't matter, perhaps because it's incoherent or stupid or just unnecessary. Also, the implications of having or not having it can be a secondary consideration too. Maybe there aren't any serious ones. Also, we don't need to get into whether it's possible or not. We can agree that it isn't impossible, subject to someone explaining how it can be.

We don't need to do Jerry's video point by point. It's almost an hour long I think. If you get the gist of it.....well then....in a nutshell, I think I'd LOVE a one word answer, to start with, to the question, 'do you think we have this type of free will?'.

Obviously, you don't have to relinquish anything about your sort of free will. At all.

I'll watch Jerry again when I get some time later. I agree we should cover him point by point.

But if it's all about your conscious self must be the only driver of the bus then I'm not sure we have that kind of free will.

Oh John. You had the chance to be my internet hero and you blew it, for yourself and for all the rational skeptics who would have revered you hereafter.

Let me answer for you.

No.

Jerry's Coyne's Free Will does not, as far as anyone can tell, exist and we don't as far as can be ascertained, have it. That's because it's arguably incoherent, ridiculous, probably impossible and likely to cause mayhem if it ever did exist. It's too high a bar. It's an unreasonable definition in that sense.

There. See how easy it could have been?

I'm just happy to be able to agree with grateful that I don't have to watch that video again.

John Platko wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

John Platko wrote:
As for how metastability effects computer timing, that is also well understood and non controversial.

Indeed it is, and I hope you understand that digital are designed with setup and hold times to ensure that your PC doesn't crash every few seconds. What you failed to show was any significance to program execution in normal use such that it affects program output is some constructive way.

I think I explained that rather clearly. PRNG seeds set by real time will vary because these synchronization effects will vary. So if you reset your computer to factor fresh settings and pretend it's like the first time and all, you'll get different answers.

What Tse failed to do was to show that thermal effects in synapses or whatever have tangible constructive effects on decisions

He showed how the thermal effects, effect the neurons firing. It's impossible to show how that leads to a given decision because nobody knows how the brain works. Unlike my metastability example where we can show in detail how that can lead to a different decision.

Hopeless.