We don't have any specific reason to choose one option over another one when we have doubts. — MoK

I see room to disagree with this as an absolute in many if not most cases of general uncertainty. Should I pass the semi-truck in front of me? (the closest oncoming car appears to be miles away, though it would be safer not to) Should I really blow another $10 on another lotto ticket this week? (the odds of winning anything are astronomically low, though it's always possible) Etc. Though, your specific example of a (I would say generally uncommon) scenario where there is truly zero background information on the likelihood (or degree) of benefit or detriment of one option over the other, like a gamble, makes for an interesting thought experiment.

Therefore, there must exist an entity, the so-called mind, that can freely decide. — MoK

I'd agree with that. But what of the most simple organism capable of traversal, say, a snail crawling through a log (or something that presents an identical physicality to your maze scenario)? Assuming it just doesn't turn around (or crawl up the wall as snails so often do), it will likely either end up going left or right absent of any relatable "mind-thought" process, wouldn't it?

People however will just "wing it", per se, and pick one to avoid losing time and ensure the destination, whatever it may be, is reached. By which I mean, I'd assume there would be very little deep thought on the matter other than "keep going" and "just pick one" if there is truly no information available or apparent distinction between one choice and another.

I dabble in psychology but am certainly not a physiologist (how the body and "mind" work together and conversely affect one another). The brain allows "us" or "you" access to retrieve/recall our experiences and knowledge thus forming an identity or "consciousness" which can be referred to as a separate "entity" or a "mind". But is it really? Like, what if, somehow, a person was raised in a sealed, pitch black room with zero interaction with any living being from infancy to adulthood (naturally with food and water), would they have a "mind"? Would they be "conscious" in the way we consider human consciousness having no real sensory experiences or knowledge?

*A decision is either based on a reason or not, in the first case we are dealing with an unfree decision, and in the second case we are dealing with a free decision. — MoK

What was the second case? Or if the maze was the second, what was the first?

We don't have any specific reason to choose one option over another one when we have doubts. Therefore, our decision is free* in this case. — MoK

Would you say that having freedom is dependent on being ignorant about some things?

The brain is however a deterministic entity so it cannot freely decide when there is doubt. — MoK

There are multiple senses of the word "indeterminism" and indeterminism in the sense discussed in the following article is relevant here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/300312282_Indeterminism_in_System_Science

You will only be able to see a very brief abstract if you aren't signed into ResearchGate, but here is an excerpt from the introduction:

It is my strong belief, expressed in an earlier paper (Elstob 1984), that the assumptions of
deterministic metaphysics will not yield a full understanding of the nature of mind. I suggest that what we need to do is develop a strong new metaphysics that places indeterminism in a central position. I see indeterminism as a key aspect of becoming in nature, of emergent processes, and of creative evolution. I believe that a metaphysics of indeterminism can be constructed that will give understanding as valuable as those produced from deterministic ideas, even though – because of the indeterminism – we cannot get from it the same degree of predictive and manipulative command of nature that determinism offers. I do not wish the overthrow of determinism, but I do want to see more clearly in what contexts it is properly applied. I want to see determinism and indeterminism both properly understood as real aspects of the world.

Therefore, there must exist an entity, the so-called mind, that can freely decide. — MoK

Brains are enormously complex entities that aren't deterministic in the sense that, given complete information about a brain and some rather enormous amount of the environment in which the brain exists, we could make perfect predictions about what will happen in that brain in that environment.

Furthermore, the things we do arise from a combination of conscious thought and subconscious thought (or subconscious information processing if you prefer).

So I disagree that we need to dualistically posit a mind as you suggest.

Would you say that having freedom is dependent on being ignorant about some things? — wonderer1

We are lost because we are free, so say the existentialists

We are lost because we are free, so say the existentialists — Gregory

:up:

I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of uncertainty about different things, but I am not absolutely sure of anything and there are many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we're here. I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without any purpose, which is the way it really is as far as I can tell.

So said Richard Feyman. :wink:

I see room to disagree with this as an absolute in many if not most cases of general uncertainty. Should I pass the semi-truck in front of me? (the closest oncoming car appears to be miles away, though it would be safer not to) Should I really blow another $10 on another lotto ticket this week? (the odds of winning anything are astronomically low, though it's always possible) Etc. Though, your specific example of a (I would say generally uncommon) scenario where there is truly zero background information on the likelihood (or degree) of benefit or detriment of one option over the other, like a gamble, makes for an interesting thought experiment. — Outlander

I use the example of the maze to ensure we can agree that the outcome of options is not determined in this case. Once this is established I can discuss the rest of my argument. There are other cases which we are uncertain about the outcomes of options (the two examples you provided and many others).

I'd agree with that. But what of the most simple organism capable of traversal, say, a snail crawling through a log (or something that presents an identical physicality to your maze scenario)? Assuming it just doesn't turn around (or crawl up the wall as snails so often do), it will likely either end up going left or right absent of any relatable "mind-thought" process, wouldn't it?

People however will just "wing it", per se, and pick one to avoid losing time and ensure the destination, whatever it may be, is reached. By which I mean, I'd assume there would be very little deep thought on the matter other than "keep going" and "just pick one" if there is truly no information available or apparent distinction between one choice and another. — Outlander

Yes, that is correct. The point is however that we can choose one option over another when there is no information available on the outcomes of options.

I dabble in psychology but am certainly not a physiologist (how the body and "mind" work together and conversely affect one another). The brain allows "us" or "you" access to retrieve/recall our experiences and knowledge thus forming an identity or "consciousness" which can be referred to as a separate "entity" or a "mind". — Outlander

By mind, I don't mean the brain or anything like identity which is formed in the brain as a result of neurobiological processes.

But is it really? Like, what if, somehow, a person was raised in a sealed, pitch black room with zero interaction with any living being from infancy to adulthood (naturally with food and water), would they have a "mind"? — Outlander

They certainly have a mind, by mind I mean an entity that can experience what is produced by the brain. His/her ability to experience however is very limited (please see the next comment).

Would they be "conscious" in the way we consider human consciousness having no real sensory experiences or knowledge? — Outlander

Our ability to experience reality well develops over time since the time of infancy. There is ongoing research on this topic. For example, this article discusses how our visual ability developes over time.

What was the second case? Or if the maze was the second, what was the first? — Outlander

The first case is when a decision is based on a reason. We say that the decision is unfree in this case. And the second case is when a decision is not based on a reason. We say that the decision is free in this case.

We don't have any specific reason to choose one option over another one when we have doubts. Therefore, our decision is free* in this case. The brain is however a deterministic entity so it cannot freely decide when there is doubt. Therefore, there must exist an entity, the so-called mind, that can freely decide. — MoK

I don't think you can predicate freedom of choice to an entity whose inner workings you cannot describe by virtue of divorcing it from the only thing we do understand stuff about - the brain. In fact, what is to say there is an intentional choice at all being made by the mind? I could model the choice the mind makes in the "doubtful" maze situation on a random number generator, or a coin toss, and it could still have the kind of freedom you describe; there is not necessarily the kind of reasoned intention that is required for a mind to be making a meaningful choice. Thus, I don't think the OP, although interesting, necessitates the existence of a freely choosing mind.

After rereading my response to the OP, I hope I didn't come across smug. I do think my conclusion is right, but it is only because of a somewhat small loophole in your argument. I think that even if you don't come up with a good defense soon - and I hope you do - you could still modify your argument somehow.

Would you say that having freedom is dependent on being ignorant about some things? — wonderer1

No, I would say that our freedom allows us to decide when we are ignorant about the outcomes of the options.

There are multiple senses of the word "indeterminism" and indeterminism in the sense discussed in the following article is relevant here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/300312282_Indeterminism_in_System_Science — wonderer1

It seems to me that the author of the manuscript is a computer scientist and not a particle physicist so I won't buy his words. I read the manuscript once and I could see the author's ignorance in the field of physics. The standard model is our best theory that describes reality well and it is experimentally tested. The particles, fermions, in this model, interact with each other through forces, bosons. The form of forces are well known and they are deterministic. By deterministic I mean that you can derive a set of equations of motion for the field operator of fermions and the field operator of bosons.

Brains are enormously complex entities that aren't deterministic in the sense that, given complete information about a brain and some rather enormous amount of the environment in which the brain exists, we could make perfect predictions about what will happen in that brain in that environment. — wonderer1

The brain is a complex entity but it is made of particles in which particles interact with the well-known forces. Therefore, I don't think that the brain is an indeterministic entity.

No, I would say that our freedom allows us to decide when we are ignorant about the outcomes of the options. — MoK

I'm having a hard time seeing what you mean.

If we fail to recognize that we are ignorant in some regard do we lack freedom to the degree that we fail to recognize our ignorance in that area?

I could model the choice the mind makes in the "doubtful" maze situation on a random number generator, or a coin toss, and it could still have the kind of freedom you describe; there is not necessarily the kind of reasoned intention that is required for a mind to be making a meaningful choice. — ToothyMaw

To the best of my knowledge, there is no pure random generator but a pseudo-random generator. You can read more about pseudo-random generator here. Regardless, the brain cannot produce a random generator to decide about a situation when the outcomes of options are not known. How about a coin toss? You can use a coin to choose a path in the maze. You however don't need it since you have the ability to freely decide.

No, I would say that our freedom allows us to decide when we are ignorant about the outcomes of the options.
— MoK

I'm having a hard time seeing what you mean.

If we fail to recognize that we are ignorant in some regard do we lack freedom to the degree that we fail to recognize our ignorance in that area? — wonderer1

I think MoK is saying here that if you know the outcomes of a decision, you can form reasons for acting in a certain way. This means the act is not free in the sense that reasons impel us to act in one way or another - the brain is deterministic, and the reasons arise from the brain.

Alternatively, when you are ignorant and have doubt, you can choose freely because reasons do not impel you to act in a certain way. However, since the brain is deterministic, this free act must arise from a mind that can freely choose.

That's my understanding at least. @MoK can correct me.

Exactly right. :100: :up: @wonderer1

I could model the choice the mind makes in the "doubtful" maze situation on a random number generator, or a coin toss, and it could still have the kind of freedom you describe; there is not necessarily the kind of reasoned intention that is required for a mind to be making a meaningful choice.
— ToothyMaw
To the best of my knowledge, there is no pure random generator but a pseudo-random generator. You can read more about pseudo-random generator here. Regardless, the brain cannot produce a random generator to decide about a situation when the outcomes of options are not known. How about a coin toss? You can use a coin to choose a path in the maze. You however don't need it since you have the ability to freely decide. — MoK

You were the one who postulated a mind distinct from the brain, and that brains cannot produce random number generators is part of the point. The supposedly freely choosing mind only requires that the doubtful maze choice be made without reason; that is to say with doubt. Since the mind is distinct from the brain as per your definition, I'm saying that it is not necessary for this mind to make meaningful choices, as that would require reasoned intent. Thus, the mind could be choosing in the doubtful maze scenario according to things that have nothing to do with intentioned choices, but rather something like a coin flip or random number generator (even if those aren't totally random). When generalized, this conflicts with any sort of conception of free will there might be; that the mind must operate the way a brain does is not required to fit your definition of free choice.

And a question I should've asked earlier: are you saying that the freely choosing mind has freedom of choice in situations in which there is no doubt?

You were the one who postulated a mind distinct from the brain, and that brains cannot produce random number generators is part of the point. The supposedly freely choosing mind only requires that the doubtful maze choice be made without reason; that is to say with doubt. Since the mind is distinct from the brain as per your definition, I'm saying that it is not necessary for this mind to make meaningful choices, as that would require reasoned intent. Thus, the mind could be choosing in the doubtful maze scenario according to things that have nothing to do with intentioned choices, but rather something like a coin flip or random number generator (even if those aren't totally random). When generalized, this conflicts with any sort of conception of free will there might be; that the mind must operate the way a brain does is not required to fit your definition of free choice. — ToothyMaw

Correct. What the mind does in a doubtful situation is random and it is similar to tossing a coin.

And a question I should've asked earlier: are you saying that the freely choosing mind has freedom of choice in situations in which there is no doubt? — ToothyMaw

That is a very good question! I believe so but I don't have a solid argument for it. Most of the time we make decisions even without being aware of them. For example, think of a situation that you are deriving on a familiar road, and your conscious attention is on the music playing in your car. You make tons of decisions while you are deriving, like turning left or right at a junction without being aware of them. But suppose that a cat jumps into the road that you are deriving. Suddenly, your mind is alerted and takes control of the situation. You press the brake and stop the car to avoid hitting the cat and probably killing it. So I think that the mind plays a role in such a situation.

A decision is either based on a reason or not, in the first case we are dealing with an unfree decision, and in the second case we are dealing with a free decision. — MoK

Most of our decisions are not based on reason, for example when I decide to order a cheeseburger rather than pate de foie gras or when I turn left on Washington Street without thinking about it. Preferences and values are not generally rational.

Most of our decisions are not based on reason, for example when I decide to order a cheeseburger rather than pate de foie gras or when I turn left on Washington Street without thinking about it. — T Clark

Are you talking about unconscious decisions?

Preferences and values are not generally rational. — T Clark

Correct. By reason, I generally mean a cause for an action, whether it is feeling, preference, value, rationality, etc.

By reason, I generally mean a cause for an action, whether it is feeling, preference, value, rationality, etc. — MoK

Perhaps "a reason" would be clearer than "reason." Even then I'd be tempted to argue your point, but then we'd just get sucked into another of those unresolvable arguments that results whenever we dive into the bottomless pit of free will.

Perhaps "a reason" would be clearer than "reason." — T Clark

Thanks for the correction.

Even then I'd be tempted to argue your point, but then we'd just get sucked into another of those unresolvable arguments that results whenever we dive into the bottomless pit of free will. — T Clark

It is alright if you don't want to engage in the discussion of free will. I don't think it is bottomless considering the argument provided in OP.

You are traveling through a maze and reach a fork. Here you experience a maximum degree of doubt (uncertainty), and the consequences of making a wrong decision are large. You take out a coin and toss it, heads to the right and tails to the left. The coin toss makes the decision. This is hardly an instance of free will, other than deciding to leave the decision to the coin.

You are traveling through a maze and reach a fork. Here you experience a maximum degree of doubt (uncertainty), and the consequences of making a wrong decision are large. Now you ponder and then make a decision. Is this free will? Or does some internal neural mechanism in your subconscious "toss a coin"?

You are traveling through a maze and reach a fork. Here you experience a maximum degree of doubt (uncertainty), and the consequences of making a wrong decision are large. You take out a coin and toss it, heads to the right and tails to the left. The coin toss makes the decision. This is hardly an instance of free will, other than deciding to leave the decision to the coin.

You are traveling through a maze and reach a fork. Here you experience a maximum degree of doubt (uncertainty), and the consequences of making a wrong decision are large. Now you ponder and then make a decision. Is this free will? Or does some internal neural mechanism in your subconscious "toss a coin"? — jgill

This is what I was getting at, but you presented it much more clearly. :up:

I look forward to MoK's response.

This is what I was getting at, but you presented it much more clearly. :up:

I look forward to MoK's response. — ToothyMaw

@jgill

Good job, both of you, of articulating what I was trying to point towards.

You are traveling through a maze and reach a fork. Here you experience a maximum degree of doubt (uncertainty), and the consequences of making a wrong decision are large. Now you ponder and then make a decision. Is this free will? — jgill

I used the maze example to ensure we can agree that the options are real. That is a huge step in the discussion of free will since many people simply argue that one of the options is an illusion and you cannot choose it. Why do people argue such a thing? Because they believe in determinism and within determinism options are not allowed. I also used the maze example to ensure that we have no reason to choose one path over another yet we can decide and choose one of the paths. That is to me the very definition of free will: "A decision is either based on a reason or not, in the first case we are dealing with an unfree decision, and in the second case we are dealing with a free decision". By this definition, I simply set up a dichotomy so given that one of the definitions is related to the unfree decision we are left with another definition for free decision.

Or does some internal neural mechanism in your subconscious "toss a coin"? — jgill

If we accept that neural mechanisms are deterministic then subconsciousness cannot toss a coin. That is true since the outcome of tossing a coin is not known whereas the outcome neural mechanisms are well defined and known.

If we accept that neural mechanisms are deterministic then subconsciousness cannot toss a coin. — MoK

Can coins be tossed in a deterministic world?

If so, then why can't a neural mechanism do something analogous to tossing a coin?

Can coins be tossed in a deterministic world? — wonderer1

Yes, we can toss a coin. I however have to add that the outcome of tossing a coin is not known to us due to our ignorance about the initial condition of the coin and the situation of the environment. If one knows the exact initial condition of the coin when it is tossed and the situation of the environment, such as wind, then one can know the outcome of tossing the coin.

If so, then why can't a neural mechanism do something analogous to tossing a coin? — wonderer1

The neural mechanisms are well-defined and deterministic. The is no agent in each neural point with a coin available to it.

If one knows the exact initial condition of the coin when it is tossed and the situation of the environment, such as wind, then one can know the outcome of tossing the coin. — MoK

Which brings us back to the role of ignorance in attributing things to free will.

We don't know anything remotely approaching the exact initial conditions of our brains and all the environmental factors which play a determing role in what happens in our brains. Furthermore, there is lots of good evidence for the powerful role of subconscious processes emerging in our conscious thought.

How is a "mind" a better explanation than subconscious processes?

Which brings us back to the role of ignorance in attributing things to free will.

We don't know anything remotely approaching the exact initial conditions of our brains and all the environmental factors which play a determing role in what happens in our brains. Furthermore, there is lots of good evidence for the powerful role of subconscious processes emerging in our conscious thought. — wonderer1

Correct. We don't know about the exact condition of neural activity of our brain but we know that it is deterministic. There is however a problem in the deterministic worldview so-called doubt. Options are real in the case we have doubts and a deterministic entity cannot deal with a situation when there are doubts.

How is a "mind" a better explanation than subconscious processes? — wonderer1

The subconscious process cannot resolve the conflict when we have doubt in a situation. That is true since the options are real when we have doubts and we don't have any reason to choose one option over another option.

Correct. We don't know about the exact condition of neural activity of our brain but we know that it is deterministic. There is however a problem in the deterministic worldview so-called doubt. Options are real in the case we have doubts and a deterministic entity cannot deal with a situation when there are doubts. — MoK

Even if we ignore quantum indeterminacy... As you say, we don't know what is going on in our own brains in any detailed way, so how can you rule out subconscious bias as being what amounts to a coin flip in your head?

Also, I don't recall you acknowledging the the sort of indeterminacy that can result from system complexity. IIRC you have a physics background, so perhaps it would be worthwhile for you to consider the relevance of the three body problem to the complex molecular environment of a brain.

The subconscious process cannot resolve the conflict when we have doubt in a situation. That is true since the options are real when we have doubts and we don't have any reason to choose one option over another option — MoK

I don't believe we are aware of all the information that enters our mind. If that is the case what the subconscious processes may indeed inform us - in what seems to be an act of free will.

I don't believe we are aware of all the information that enters our mind. If that is the case what the subconscious processes may indeed inform us - in what seems to be an act of free will. — jgill

Very good point.

We might say that we go with our intuitions in such cases.

Even if we ignore quantum indeterminacy... As you say, we don't know what is going on in our own brains in any detailed way, so how can you rule out subconscious bias as being what amounts to a coin flip in your head? — wonderer1

Do you mind explaining what you mean by the subconsciousness? Does it have a mind or is it a deterministic entity?

Also, I don't recall you acknowledging the the sort of indeterminacy that can result from system complexity. IIRC you have a physics background, so perhaps it would be worthwhile for you to consider the relevance of the three body problem to the complex molecular environment of a brain. — wonderer1

I know problems related to a system with three or more particles. There is no analytical solution for such a system and the system could be chaotic depending on the initial condition.