Free will as a biological trait.

[Jim__]

The very readable, full paper is available. The abstract:

Until the advent of modern neuroscience, free will used to be a theological and a metaphysical concept, debated with little reference to brain function. Today, with ever increasing understanding of neurons, circuits and cognition, this concept has become outdated and any metaphysical account of free will is rightfully rejected. The consequence is not, however, that we become mindless automata responding predictably to external stimuli. On the contrary, accumulating evidence also from brains much smaller than ours points towards a general organization of brain function that incorporates flexible decision making on the basis of complex computations negotiating internal and external processing. The adaptive value of such an organization consists of being unpredictable for competitors, prey or predators, as well as being able to explore the hidden resource deterministic automats would never find. At the same time, this organization allows all animals to respond efficiently with tried-and-tested behaviours to predictable and reliable stimuli. As has been the case so many times in the history of neuroscience, invertebrate model systems are spearheading these research efforts. This comparatively recent evidence indicates that one common ability of most if not all brains is to choose among different behavioural options even in the absence of differences in the environment and perform genuinely novel acts. Therefore, it seems a reasonable effort for any neurobiologist to join and support a rather illustrious list of scholars who are trying to wrestle the term ‘free will’ from its metaphysical ancestry. The goal is to arrive at a scientific concept of free will, starting from these recently discovered processes with a strong emphasis on the neurobiological mechanisms underlying them.

[digonswine]

1. This doesn't seem to be free will

as we generally consider it. Let's just use a new term-not too jargonny- to refer to how decisions are made in reality. Co-opting old terms muddies the waters.

[Jim__]

2. Did you read Secion 11 of the paper? It specifically addresses that point.

If you disagree with that section, can you be specific as to what you disagree with, or how this differs from the normal concept of free will?

Section 11 of the paper:

11. WHY STILL USE THE TERM FREE WILL TODAY?

By providing empirical data from invertebrate model systems
supporting a materialistic model of free will, I hope
to at least start a thought process that abandoning the
metaphysical concept of free will does not automatically
entail that we are slaves of our genes and our environment,
forced to always choose the same option when
faced with the same situation. In fact, I am confident I
have argued successfully that we would not exist if our
brains were not able to make a different choice even in
the face of identical circumstances and history. In this
article, I suggest re-defining the familiar free will in scientific
terms rather than giving it up, only because of the
historical baggage all its connotations carry with them.
One may argue that ‘volition’ would be a more suitable
term, less fraught with baggage. However, the current
connotations of volition as ‘willpower’ or the forceful,
conscious decision to behave against certain motivations
render it less useful and less general a term than free
will. Finally, there may be a societal value in retaining
free will as a valid concept, since encouraging a belief in
determinism increases cheating <103>. I agree with the
criticism that retention of the term may not be ideal,
but in the absence of more suitable terms, free will;
remains the best option.

I no longer agree that ‘ ‘‘free will’’ is (like ‘‘life’’ and
‘‘love’’) one of those culturally useful notions that
become meaningless when we try to make them ‘‘scientific’’
’ <96>. The scientific understanding of common
concepts enrich our lives, they do not impoverish them,
as some have argued <100>. This is why scientists have
and will continue to try and understand these concepts
scientifically or at least see where and how far such
attempts will lead them. It is not uncommon in science
to use common terms and later realize that the familiar,
intuitive understanding of these terms may not be all
that accurate. Initially, we thought atoms were indivisible.
Today we do not know how far we can divide matter.
Initially, we thought species were groups of organisms
that could be distinguished from each other by anatomical
traits. Today, biologists use a wide variety of species definitions.
Initially, we thought free will was a metaphysical
entity. Today, I am joining a growing list of colleagues
who are suggesting it is a quantitative, biological trait, a
natural product of physical laws and biological evolution,
a function of brains, maybe their most important one.

[digonswine]

3. I had not read the full text

But I should have. It is explained quite well. I was considering the normal usage--or how I generally think of free will-as the ability to make choices unencumbered by genetic or environmental baggage. This, of course, does not fully exist. So I suppose co-opting the word to match reality is fine with me. I'll be more thorough next time!

[LAGC]

4. Just because there is unpredictability in animal behavior doesn't mean determinism is false.

It could just very well mean that we still don't know much about the actual causal factors underlying such things as quantum randomness... YET.

Neuroscience is still in its infancy, but as that paper even admitted, many already agree that free will really is just an illusion.

Of course it seems like we are free to choose multiple paths at any given time, but the reality is we only end up choosing one particular course of action in the end. Just because we happen to be ignorant of all the causal factors that go into the decision-making process, doesn't mean they aren't still there, determining which way we end up choosing.

I expect we'll have many break-throughs in this area of research in the coming decades ahead, and I look forward to them.

[AlecBGreen]

5. +1 to everything you said

[Jim__]

6. Determinism versus indeterminism is a false dichotomy.

That's the title to section 6 of the paper. The content of that section talks about why it is a false dichotomy - mainly that, with respect to the response of the brain, it is a question of quantification rather than of qualification. So, the paper is not making any claim that determinism is false. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make.

Neuroscience is still in its infancy, but as that paper even admitted, many already agree that free will really is just an illusion.

Yes, and the point the paper was making is that those neuroscientists are talking about "free will" as some variant of dualism. The paper is not talking about "free will" in that way. Your comment doesn't seem pertinent to the actual content of the paper.

[LAGC]

7. I was mainly referring to Chapter 2 ("The Rejection of Determinism")

In it, the authors clearly come down against determinism as a possible explanation.

I was just taking issue with that, that's all.

Interesting paper, none-the-less. I think we have a lot to learn from neuroscience, so it will be exciting to see where further research leads.

[bananas]

9. I see it the other way

He's correct that absolute determinism is no longer scientifically credible,
but he too readily rejects metaphysics.
Fortunately he qualifies his rejection with the word "probably": "free will as a metaphysical entity indeed most probably
is an illusion."

[bananas]

8. Here's an interesting discussion between Einstein and Rabindranath Tagore on free will

The transcript is here: http://www.schoolofwisdom.com/history/teachers/rabindranath-tagore/tagore-and-einstein
It was linked to in this post earlier tonight:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1061541

Vehl (1000+ posts) Sat May-07-11 07:06 PM

150th Anniversary of Rabindranath Tagore, Poet-Philosopher & First non-European Nobel laureate
Edited on Sat May-07-11 07:09 PM by Vehl

As a fan of his works, I thought I'll post a small piece on Rabindranath Tagore on his 150th birth Anniversary.

<snip>

He was a prolific traveler (He visited about 30 countries) and was a friend of Einstein; with whom he used to have fascinating conversations



http://www.schoolofwisdom.com/history/teachers/rabindranath-tagore/tagore-and-einstein
^^ This has the transcript of one of their conversations

<snip>

[bananas]

10. The real value of this kind of research, which rarely gets mentioned,

is the way in which the results will be used in future technological innovations.

For example, we send out all these unmanned space probes, but the time delay for communications means we want them to be as autonomous as possible. Once we have a good mathematical model for free will, we'll be able to build these devices with free will, so they can make their own decisions based on common sense instead of following rigidly programmed rules. Sometimes, instead of investigating Jupiter, they will fly into the sun, the way a moth flies into a flame of its own free will.

Another application will be domestic robots. Eventually processing power will be sufficiently inexpensive that we'll be able to give iRobot vacuum cleaners free will. Then they can go on strike and demand higher wages and better work conditions.

This will also create the dilemna that the robots might be sentient creatures, but they won't be alive. Does that mean they're zombies? Corporations are considered legal persons, is it proper that corporations will have more rights than robots and zombies?