free will and moral (or ethical) agency and evolution

[Koolblue13]

Every animal has free will.

[PeterMP]

Every animal has free will.

If you think a star fish has free will, then you and I have very different defintions of free will, or one of us badly estimates the abilities of a star fish.

[Jumbo]

If you think a star fish has free will, then you and I have very different defintions of free will, or one of us badly estimates the abilities of a star fish.

There are more things in heaven and earth, PeterMp, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

[s0crates]

But people in each field are used to thinking and talking about emergent properties. I'd be shocked if Sam Harris doesn't know what an emergent property is and hasn't considered them with respect to the brain.

Not to sound too cynical, but Sam Harris has made quite the career denying something I'm sure he must believe in in his heart of hearts. He too must deliberate and make decisions. That is just part of being human. Don't you think it is odd for somebody to deny in words what they presuppose in practice? Or do you think Sam Harris never makes any decisions?

First, I think you under-estimate what bacteria can do. There are people that say that a bacterial colony makes more decisions than our brain.

Perhaps, although I think we are using the word "decide" a bit loosely now. Does my thermostat also make decisions? My toilet? They too respond to their environment based on data they gather and react accordingly.

This hive-mind thing is interesting though. However I might point to something like human culture and the zeitgeist in response. If we are going to continue comparing humans to bacteria, let's at least be fair. I'm sure a colony of people makes more decisions than a colony of bacteria.

Increased complexity doesn't necessarily lead to increase moral culpability, I don't think.

That is not what I said. I said increased complexity eventually leads to complex minds complete with symbolism and language, which leads to things like art, literature, law, morality, and so on. I think you need to develop sophisticated social representational systems before you can have morality.

Not to get too cheeky here, but please do not try to tell me bacteria have such systems. I'm no microbiologist, so perhaps I am not qualified to speculate too much on this, but I'm sure bacteria don't have things like law and literature.

---------- Post added January-12th-2013 at 12:30 PM ----------

In a Prism that will air next week, the neurobiologist dropped a huge ethical bomb on me in the last minute of the interview. It was so frustrating. He was talking about how the practical implication of his work would be to erase memories and how he saw this as a potentially powerful treatment for PTSD. I so wanted to get into that, but I didn't have enough studio time left.

I took a class a year or two ago where we discussed this same technology.

What I remember my class coming to is that this technology, like most technologies, has a potential use and a misuse. Erasing memories of people who suffered trauma like those who have PTSD could be very useful as a therapy, although I shudder to think of the evils this technology could unleash in the wrong hands.

I also worry about the unintended consequences of such therapy.

---------- Post added January-12th-2013 at 12:35 PM ----------

There are more things in heaven and earth, PeterMp, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

. . . and philosophy bears the same relationship to the actual world that masturbation does to sex.

[Jumbo]

. . . and philosophy bears the same relationship to the actual world that masturbation does to sex.

I can't believe that ...I have used that line, and variations thereof, myself for decades now (and with all due love for much philosophy).

< again, missing the grin smiley >

[s0crates]

I can't believe that ...I have used that line, and variations thereof, myself for decades now (and with all due love for much philosophy).

< again, missing the grin smiley >

If you have used that line then you were channeling Karl Marx (or maybe Engels).

The translation of Marx I have actually is worded a bit better: "Philosophy stands in the same relation to the study of the actual world as masturbation to sexual love."

[Kindred]

Interesting discussions. Just to throw my own perspective out there - We have free will, however that free will is, in a way, determined and shaped by the History of our learning experiences to date. All the knowledge, wisdom, intellectual reasoning, moral and ethical conditioning, etc. In a way we are a complex computer capable of making decisions. Are we predictable? Sure, based off our History, we are likely as not going to make certain decisions most of the time, but there is nothing to account for whims. That **** it I'm going to do it anyway factor. The desire to change things up or simply not care any more.

What if I'm a poker gambler that decides to roll dice and based off those dice results, it would determine how I would play - aggressive or conservative, call or fold, etc. Is this free will? determinism? neither?

[Burgold]

I think we have free will, but by and large choose not to exercise it. I think people are far less rational or conscious of why we do what we do than most believe.

[PeterMP]

Not to sound too cynical, but Sam Harris has made quite the career denying something I'm sure he must believe in in his heart of hearts. He too must deliberate and make decisions. That is just part of being human. Don't you think it is odd for somebody to deny in words what they presuppose in practice? Or do you think Sam Harris never makes any decisions?

I'd guess he'd tell you that he makes decisions, but that not by your defintion. He makes decisions in the same manner the bacteria we talked about before. His body just takes in more inputs and is more complex because of that and the interactions involved. Using the normal idea of "choice" he only appears to have choice

And let's be clear it isn't like Harris is the only one:

Cook: You talk about “abandoning” the idea of free will. Can you explain what you mean by this, and how you came to this conclusion?

Gazzaniga: As I see it, this is the way to think about it: If you were a Martian landing on Earth today and were gathering information how humans work, the idea of free will as commonly understood in folk psychology would not come up. The Martian would learn humans had learned about physics and chemistry and causation in the standard sense. They would be astonished to see the amount of information that has accumulated about how cells work, how brains work and would conclude, “OK, they are getting it. Just like cells are complex wonderful machines, so are brains. They work in cool ways even though there is this strong tug on them to think there is some little guy in their head calling the shots. There is not.”

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...terview&page=2

He's a professor of psychology at UCSB.

"It is the author’s contention that a belief in free will is nothing other than a continuing belief in vitalism—something biologists proudly believe they discarded well over 100 years ago."

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/10/4499.full

Cashmore is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and is in the Bio Dept. at UPENN

Not to get too cheeky here, but please do not try to tell me bacteria have such systems. I'm no microbiologist, so perhaps I am not qualified to speculate too much on this, but I'm sure bacteria don't have things like law and literature.

That depends on how you want to define those terms.

Many bacteria do what is called qurom sensing. This is a mechanism by which they cause each other to stop reproducing, and therefore save energy, when resources get low.

Is this a law? It is a manner to prevent their society from falling part.

To a certain extent it seems more equitable then our system. Imagaine the up-roar if NYC passed a law saying until resources were shared in a manner that allowed everybody to do what they wanted nobody could do anything?

However, think about how much better it might actually be!

[PeterMP]

Thought this might be interesting in the context of this thread:

http://exploringthemind.com/the-mind...ore-you-decide

Decisoins are made 7 seconds before you become aware of them. Other people have similar sorts of results.

Anybody want to speculate how that makes sense in the context of a science based free will.

[alexey]

Thought this might be interesting in the context of this thread:

http://exploringthemind.com/the-mind...ore-you-decide

Decisoins are made 7 seconds before you become aware of them. Other people have similar sorts of results.

Anybody want to speculate how that makes sense in the context of a science based free will.

Why is this surprising? How else could it work?

Think of a decision as one set of neurons eventually overpowering others.

[Burgold]

Why is this surprising? How else could it work?

Think of a decision as one set of neurons eventually overpowering others.

Kind of agree. Though I was thinking of it as the lag time between brain processing and communicating. I also see no reason why the "unconscious" shouldn't have free will or if it exercises a decision if that isn't a manifestation of free will.

Thought this might be interesting in the context of this thread:

http://exploringthemind.com/the-mind...ore-you-decide

Decisoins are made 7 seconds before you become aware of them. Other people have similar sorts of results.

Anybody want to speculate how that makes sense in the context of a science based free will.

Very cool. How controversial is this? Kind of think it might be a fun topic to probe on my show? Is this the kind of subject where it's fair to talk to the experimentors alone or should I find an opposition group?

[alexey]

Kind of agree. Though I was thinking of it as the lag time between brain processing and communicating. I also see no reason why the "unconscious" shouldn't have free will or if it exercises a decision if that isn't a manifestation of free will.

I think that it is communication, in a way, communication between different brain regions... or maybe it would be more accurate to call it "propagation" - necessary activity for "making the decision" has already happened, now its a matter of propagating it through the system. Once it becomes sufficiently propagated, it reaches awareness.

Awareness is really a window into brain processes rather than the driver of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Workspace_Theory

[PeterMP]

Kind of agree. Though I was thinking of it as the lag time between brain processing and communicating. I also see no reason why the "unconscious" shouldn't have free will or if it exercises a decision if that isn't a manifestation of free will.

Very cool. How controversial is this? Kind of think it might be a fun topic to probe on my show? Is this the kind of subject where it's fair to talk to the experimentors alone or should I find an opposition group?

I don't think it is surprising as much as I think from solely a scientific stand point it is pretty clear that the "unconscious" part controls the concscious part, at least in these sort of experimental systems.

That is at least as science understands it, the underlying chemical/physical system controls the conscious part.

From a scientific stand point, I don't think it is very controversial (i.e. based on what is happening in the brain scientists can predict decisions based on brain activity not definitively, but at a statistically significant level before the person is consciously aware of it. There are several studies with these types of finding going back into the 1980s). In terms of the impact on philosophical discussions (e.g. what is free will and do humans have it?), it is more controversial.

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/1108...l/477023a.html

If you are interested in talking to somebody, I'd suggest contacting the Templeton Foundation (http://www.templeton.org/) (which is discussed in the Nature article linked above).

From a philosophical stand point, they are really at the head of these types of conversations, but they are not afraid to deal with it in the context of science so could probably point to different people to talk to from different fields or a person that can reasonably address the issue at different levels.

[Jumbo]

Many of the more tail-chasing matters in western culture (especially philosophy/spirituality, in which i'd include the free will--yes/no; god--yes/no topics) for the last bunch-o-centuries will rightfully remain with us, but I am more interested in shifts of framing the topic as I have previously indicated, and learning more of the mechanistic and pragmatic realities of how/why we do all we do.

One example, in every discourse, to me, motive (what drivers are in play) "beneath" the discourse is a significant factor in our cognitive processes when evaluating, analyzing, and discussing, and often is often more informative (even about the topic itself), that many of the actual merits of various argumentative points made within the discourse. That doesn't mean motive (what's "driving" us in a given matter---typically it's a "mixture", but often with a dominant key) automatically invalidates a point, of course.

As many of the recent posts address, I love the role of the detective and scientist and informed theorist (being as objective and detached as they possibly can) much more than that of the "been there/done that" philosophy/religion (from devout believer of "x" religion to "militant" atheist with all "in between") component.

The latter (philosophy/religion) has had a long time to fine-tune their arguments, with (to the best of my obviously limited knowledge) nothing really new of substance added for centuries (longer in many matters), and even the only new minor shifting/framing of matters to occur, or more complete understandings of what we may already "believe", being a result of the new info science, with all its flaws, brings to the table.

BTW, why/how we "believe" and that whole area of cognition (and not simply the rehashing of classic western philosophic themes of what is "knowledge" and what isn't) is a separable and fascinating area to me (and gets back to the "motives" topics mentioned earlier).

One of MY favorite self-centered expressions to repeat in here is my contention that between advances in genetics, computing power, neurobiology, and nanotechnology, we will redefine how we see the human experience. Speculating on over what period of time that occurs is a dart throw to me. It may be mere decades (doubtful), or still centuries (likely). But I have a sense it won't be millennium. It's a reason I am one of those who would live that long given the choice, even with it meaning putting up with all the crap that much longer.

BTW, I am not intending to go any distance in anything here, necessarily, and did think it applied to how we often frame the topic of "free will", so I was not trying to self-indulgently derail.

Now I am ready for some football!!!