Friam

Free Will in the Atlantic

Classic

List

Threaded

122 messages Options

1234 ... 7

Jochen Fromm-5

Free Will in the Atlantic

Was it only 150 years ago when Charles Darwin first published 'On the Origin of Species' ? It feels longer. Interesting story from Stephen Cave

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/theres-no-such-thing-as-free-will/480750/

-J.

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Pieter Steenekamp

Re: Free Will in the Atlantic

From a strict scientific perspective I accept that we don't have free will. I don't argue that we have free will. I accept, and I quote from the article quoted above:
"the brain is a physical system like any other, and we have no more will to operate it in a particular way than we will our heart to beat". But...

From how humans perceive our own actions, I assert that we do have free will of "some sorts''. Similar to some computer programs that also have free will of "some sorts". We all agree that AlphGo who beat Lee Sedol in Go does not have free will, it did exactly what the computer code instructed it to do, but it came up with creative play that the human programmers did not even know about. This is in my view also "some sorts" of free will.

On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 at 14:15, Jochen Fromm <[hidden email]> wrote:

Was it only 150 years ago when Charles Darwin first published 'On the Origin of Species' ? It feels longer. Interesting story from Stephen Cave
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/theres-no-such-thing-as-free-will/480750/

-J.

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Prof David West

Re: Free Will in the Atlantic

Pieter quoted: "the brain is a physical system like any other, and we have no more will to operate it in a particular way than we will our heart to beat".

But we do have the ability, and can "will" our heart to beat in a particular way.

Not only that, we (at least some individuals in the world) can control pretty much every aspect of our "autonomous nervous system." I learned how to generate alpha waves in my brain while awake and talking. Researchers recently conducted cogent conversations with individuals in the middle of lucid dreams. Then there is all the "bio-feedback" data and practices. Hundreds of similar examples could be cited.

Just because we don't, as a general rule, does not mean we cannot.

Not saying anything in this post is an argument for free will — just that the quoted argument against free will is fatally flawed.

davewest

On Fri, Apr 2, 2021, at 7:10 AM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:

From a strict scientific perspective I accept that we don't have free will. I don't argue that we have free will. I accept, and I quote from the article quoted above:
"the brain is a physical system like any other, and we have no more will to operate it in a particular way than we will our heart to beat". But...

From how humans perceive our own actions, I assert that we do have free will of "some sorts''. Similar to some computer programs that also have free will of "some sorts". We all agree that AlphGo who beat Lee Sedol in Go does not have free will, it did exactly what the computer code instructed it to do, but it came up with creative play that the human programmers did not even know about. This is in my view also "some sorts" of free will.

On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 at 14:15, Jochen Fromm <[hidden email]> wrote:
Was it only 150 years ago when Charles Darwin first published 'On the Origin of Species' ? It feels longer. Interesting story from Stephen Cave
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/theres-no-such-thing-as-free-will/480750/

-J.

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Free Will in the Atlantic

You had to learn how to generate alpha waves. And the information processing associated my lucid dreams are just a function of previous events, which themselves were unavoidable. A million of these examples won’t explain why mind stuff is fundamentally different from other physical stuff.

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 6:53 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free Will in the Atlantic

Pieter quoted: "the brain is a physical system like any other, and we have no more will to operate it in a particular way than we will our heart to beat".

But we do have the ability, and can "will" our heart to beat in a particular way.

Just because we don't, as a general rule, does not mean we cannot.

Not saying anything in this post is an argument for free will — just that the quoted argument against free will is fatally flawed.

davewest

On Fri, Apr 2, 2021, at 7:10 AM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:

From a strict scientific perspective I accept that we don't have free will. I don't argue that we have free will. I accept, and I quote from the article quoted above:

"the brain is a physical system like any other, and we have no more will to operate it in a particular way than we will our heart to beat". But...

From how humans perceive our own actions, I assert that we do have free will of "some sorts''. Similar to some computer programs that also have free will of "some sorts". We all agree that AlphGo who beat Lee Sedol in Go does not have free will, it did exactly what the computer code instructed it to do, but it came up with creative play that the human programmers did not even know about. This is in my view also "some sorts" of free will.

On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 at 14:15, Jochen Fromm <[hidden email]> wrote:

Was it only 150 years ago when Charles Darwin first published 'On the Origin of Species' ? It feels longer. Interesting story from Stephen Cave

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/theres-no-such-thing-as-free-will/480750/

-J.

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam

un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam

un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

thompnickson2

Re: Free Will in the Atlantic

In reply to this post by Prof David West

Hi, Dave,

I have, more and more, been drinking my own monist Kool-Aid. Now Eric may dispute me here, but I think that in a true experience monism, there is no behavior, except as we experience it. As an experiencing entity, we are truly along for the ride. Free will is just another experience. You might ask, then, what is experience “for”? It aint for nothin’. It just is.

Anyway, that’s the Friday morning report.

Nick Thompson

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 7:53 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free Will in the Atlantic

Pieter quoted: "the brain is a physical system like any other, and we have no more will to operate it in a particular way than we will our heart to beat".

But we do have the ability, and can "will" our heart to beat in a particular way.

Just because we don't, as a general rule, does not mean we cannot.

Not saying anything in this post is an argument for free will — just that the quoted argument against free will is fatally flawed.

davewest

On Fri, Apr 2, 2021, at 7:10 AM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:

From a strict scientific perspective I accept that we don't have free will. I don't argue that we have free will. I accept, and I quote from the article quoted above:
"the brain is a physical system like any other, and we have no more will to operate it in a particular way than we will our heart to beat". But...

From how humans perceive our own actions, I assert that we do have free will of "some sorts''. Similar to some computer programs that also have free will of "some sorts". We all agree that AlphGo who beat Lee Sedol in Go does not have free will, it did exactly what the computer code instructed it to do, but it came up with creative play that the human programmers did not even know about. This is in my view also "some sorts" of free will.

On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 at 14:15, Jochen Fromm <[hidden email]> wrote:
Was it only 150 years ago when Charles Darwin first published 'On the Origin of Species' ? It feels longer. Interesting story from Stephen Cave
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/theres-no-such-thing-as-free-will/480750/

-J.

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Pieter Steenekamp

Re: Free Will in the Atlantic

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

I agree you can't prove we don't have free will. It's like proving the flying spaghetti monster false.

On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 at 17:06, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

You had to learn how to generate alpha waves. And the information processing associated my lucid dreams are just a function of previous events, which themselves were unavoidable. A million of these examples won’t explain why mind stuff is fundamentally different from other physical stuff.

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 6:53 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free Will in the Atlantic

Pieter quoted: "the brain is a physical system like any other, and we have no more will to operate it in a particular way than we will our heart to beat".

But we do have the ability, and can "will" our heart to beat in a particular way.

Not only that, we (at least some individuals in the world) can control pretty much every aspect of our "autonomous nervous system." I learned how to generate alpha waves in my brain while awake and talking. Researchers recently conducted cogent conversations with individuals in the middle of lucid dreams. Then there is all the "bio-feedback" data and practices. Hundreds of similar examples could be cited.

Just because we don't, as a general rule, does not mean we cannot.

Not saying anything in this post is an argument for free will — just that the quoted argument against free will is fatally flawed.

davewest

On Fri, Apr 2, 2021, at 7:10 AM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:

From a strict scientific perspective I accept that we don't have free will. I don't argue that we have free will. I accept, and I quote from the article quoted above:

"the brain is a physical system like any other, and we have no more will to operate it in a particular way than we will our heart to beat". But...

From how humans perceive our own actions, I assert that we do have free will of "some sorts''. Similar to some computer programs that also have free will of "some sorts". We all agree that AlphGo who beat Lee Sedol in Go does not have free will, it did exactly what the computer code instructed it to do, but it came up with creative play that the human programmers did not even know about. This is in my view also "some sorts" of free will.

On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 at 14:15, Jochen Fromm <[hidden email]> wrote:

Was it only 150 years ago when Charles Darwin first published 'On the Origin of Species' ? It feels longer. Interesting story from Stephen Cave

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/theres-no-such-thing-as-free-will/480750/

-J.

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam

un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam

un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Free Will in the Atlantic

In reply to this post by thompnickson2

Here’s a review paper on the topic. https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn.2017.14

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of [hidden email]
Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 8:26 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free Will in the Atlantic

Hi, Dave,

Anyway, that’s the Friday morning report.

Nick Thompson

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 7:53 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free Will in the Atlantic

Pieter quoted: "the brain is a physical system like any other, and we have no more will to operate it in a particular way than we will our heart to beat".

But we do have the ability, and can "will" our heart to beat in a particular way.

Just because we don't, as a general rule, does not mean we cannot.

Not saying anything in this post is an argument for free will — just that the quoted argument against free will is fatally flawed.

davewest

On Fri, Apr 2, 2021, at 7:10 AM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:

From a strict scientific perspective I accept that we don't have free will. I don't argue that we have free will. I accept, and I quote from the article quoted above:

"the brain is a physical system like any other, and we have no more will to operate it in a particular way than we will our heart to beat". But...

From how humans perceive our own actions, I assert that we do have free will of "some sorts''. Similar to some computer programs that also have free will of "some sorts". We all agree that AlphGo who beat Lee Sedol in Go does not have free will, it did exactly what the computer code instructed it to do, but it came up with creative play that the human programmers did not even know about. This is in my view also "some sorts" of free will.

On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 at 14:15, Jochen Fromm <[hidden email]> wrote:

Was it only 150 years ago when Charles Darwin first published 'On the Origin of Species' ? It feels longer. Interesting story from Stephen Cave

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/theres-no-such-thing-as-free-will/480750/

-J.

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam

un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam

un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

gepr

Re: Free Will in the Atlantic

> The comparator model of agency
> As described above, a sense of agency is generated when voluntary actions match outcomes. In computational models of motor control (FIG. 3) , motor commands are used to predict the sensory consequences of action 56 . This prediction is thought to involve passing an efference copy of the motor command to a ‘forward model’ (also known as an ‘internal predictive model’) of the moving body part 57 . Sensory information about the body and the environment is then compared with the sensory feedback that would be predicted given the motor command. The result of this comparison is known as a prediction error . For example, when the brain sends the motor command to reach for the light switch, one might predict the resulting movement of the arm and also that the lights will come on. If the arm does not move in the appropriate way, the motor control system must update or alter the motor command to achieve the goal of switching the lights on.
> Comparator models were originally developed to explain how the brain monitors and corrects goal-directed movements. However, the same models have also been used to explain the sense of agency. If an event is caused by one’s own action (and if the internal predictive model is correct), the actual feedback corre-sponds exactly to the prediction, and the result of the comparison is zero; otherwise, the result is a non-zero prediction error.
> According to this view, people have a sense of agency over events that can be predicted given their motor commands.

I'm sure it's confirmation bias. But this sounds a lot like my LOMFW (lost opportunity mechanism for free will). FWIW, I'd claim any viable conception of free will must rely on interoceptive feedback and the *rates* at which those loops run. And while there is no such thing as "traditional free will", where our self is some holistic agent, there are collections of reinforcing and inhibiting feedbacks that trade off for dominance amongst each other. So, iteration/training/exercise over a skill like slowing one's heart rate not only improves one's predictive *model* of the process-outcome, it raises the likelihood that it'll happen again in the future.

And, legally, emotionally, etc. there's no denying that the *majority* of this mechanistic work happens *inside* our skin. So, when one's collection of interacting feedbacks chooses to, say, murder someone, it's patently True that that particular bag of meat decided to do that of their own "free will". This doesn't depend on persnickety academic sophistry teasing out traditional vs. scientific free will.

On 4/2/21 8:46 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Here’s a review paper on the topic. https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn.2017.14 <https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn.2017.14>

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Free Will in the Atlantic

< And, legally, emotionally, etc. there's no denying that the *majority* of this mechanistic work happens *inside* our skin. So, when one's collection of interacting feedbacks chooses to, say, murder someone, it's patently True that that particular bag of meat decided to do that of their own "free will". This doesn't depend on persnickety academic sophistry teasing out traditional vs. scientific free will. >

Was the murder a necessary consequence of holistic trajectory of the evolving universe? If no, then "free will" is just a perception as Nick and this paper argue. A high-order reactive set of functions are still just that.

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 9:06 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free Will in the Atlantic

> The comparator model of agency
> As described above, a sense of agency is generated when voluntary actions match outcomes. In computational models of motor control (FIG. 3) , motor commands are used to predict the sensory consequences of action 56 . This prediction is thought to involve passing an efference copy of the motor command to a ‘forward model’ (also known as an ‘internal predictive model’) of the moving body part 57 . Sensory information about the body and the environment is then compared with the sensory feedback that would be predicted given the motor command. The result of this comparison is known as a prediction error . For example, when the brain sends the motor command to reach for the light switch, one might predict the resulting movement of the arm and also that the lights will come on. If the arm does not move in the appropriate way, the motor control system must update or alter the motor command to achieve the goal of switching the lights on.
> Comparator models were originally developed to explain how the brain monitors and corrects goal-directed movements. However, the same models have also been used to explain the sense of agency. If an event is caused by one’s own action (and if the internal predictive model is correct), the actual feedback corre-sponds exactly to the prediction, and the result of the comparison is zero; otherwise, the result is a non-zero prediction error.
> According to this view, people have a sense of agency over events that can be predicted given their motor commands.

I'm sure it's confirmation bias. But this sounds a lot like my LOMFW (lost opportunity mechanism for free will). FWIW, I'd claim any viable conception of free will must rely on interoceptive feedback and the *rates* at which those loops run. And while there is no such thing as "traditional free will", where our self is some holistic agent, there are collections of reinforcing and inhibiting feedbacks that trade off for dominance amongst each other. So, iteration/training/exercise over a skill like slowing one's heart rate not only improves one's predictive *model* of the process-outcome, it raises the likelihood that it'll happen again in the future.

And, legally, emotionally, etc. there's no denying that the *majority* of this mechanistic work happens *inside* our skin. So, when one's collection of interacting feedbacks chooses to, say, murder someone, it's patently True that that particular bag of meat decided to do that of their own "free will". This doesn't depend on persnickety academic sophistry teasing out traditional vs. scientific free will.

On 4/2/21 8:46 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Here’s a review paper on the topic.
> https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn.2017.14
> <https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn.2017.14>

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

gepr

Re: Free Will in the Atlantic

Sure. But that's irrelevant. We still toss the bag of meat into prison.

On 4/2/21 9:19 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> A high-order reactive set of functions are still just that.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Free Will in the Atlantic

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

(I meant "If so", not "If no".)

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 9:19 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free Will in the Atlantic

< And, legally, emotionally, etc. there's no denying that the *majority* of this mechanistic work happens *inside* our skin. So, when one's collection of interacting feedbacks chooses to, say, murder someone, it's patently True that that particular bag of meat decided to do that of their own "free will". This doesn't depend on persnickety academic sophistry teasing out traditional vs. scientific free will. >

Was the murder a necessary consequence of holistic trajectory of the evolving universe? If no, then "free will" is just a perception as Nick and this paper argue. A high-order reactive set of functions are still just that.

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 9:06 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free Will in the Atlantic

> The comparator model of agency
> As described above, a sense of agency is generated when voluntary actions match outcomes. In computational models of motor control (FIG. 3) , motor commands are used to predict the sensory consequences of action 56 . This prediction is thought to involve passing an efference copy of the motor command to a ‘forward model’ (also known as an ‘internal predictive model’) of the moving body part 57 . Sensory information about the body and the environment is then compared with the sensory feedback that would be predicted given the motor command. The result of this comparison is known as a prediction error . For example, when the brain sends the motor command to reach for the light switch, one might predict the resulting movement of the arm and also that the lights will come on. If the arm does not move in the appropriate way, the motor control system must update or alter the motor command to achieve the goal of switching the lights on.
> Comparator models were originally developed to explain how the brain monitors and corrects goal-directed movements. However, the same models have also been used to explain the sense of agency. If an event is caused by one’s own action (and if the internal predictive model is correct), the actual feedback corre-sponds exactly to the prediction, and the result of the comparison is zero; otherwise, the result is a non-zero prediction error.
> According to this view, people have a sense of agency over events that can be predicted given their motor commands.

I'm sure it's confirmation bias. But this sounds a lot like my LOMFW (lost opportunity mechanism for free will). FWIW, I'd claim any viable conception of free will must rely on interoceptive feedback and the *rates* at which those loops run. And while there is no such thing as "traditional free will", where our self is some holistic agent, there are collections of reinforcing and inhibiting feedbacks that trade off for dominance amongst each other. So, iteration/training/exercise over a skill like slowing one's heart rate not only improves one's predictive *model* of the process-outcome, it raises the likelihood that it'll happen again in the future.

And, legally, emotionally, etc. there's no denying that the *majority* of this mechanistic work happens *inside* our skin. So, when one's collection of interacting feedbacks chooses to, say, murder someone, it's patently True that that particular bag of meat decided to do that of their own "free will". This doesn't depend on persnickety academic sophistry teasing out traditional vs. scientific free will.

On 4/2/21 8:46 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Here’s a review paper on the topic.
> https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn.2017.14
> <https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn.2017.14>

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Free Will in the Atlantic

In reply to this post by gepr

Another reactive high-order function. Quaint, really.

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 9:25 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free Will in the Atlantic

Sure. But that's irrelevant. We still toss the bag of meat into prison.

On 4/2/21 9:19 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> A high-order reactive set of functions are still just that.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

jon zingale

Re: Free Will in the Atlantic

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

"""
Was the murder a necessary consequence of holistic trajectory of the
evolving universe? If so, then "free will" is just a perception as Nick
and this paper argue. A high-order reactive set of functions are still just
that.
"""

Arguably we would need to be able to calculate such a thing, no? It may be
scientifically determined that this problem is provably undecidable.

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

gepr

Re: Free Will in the Atlantic

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

Ha! By "quaint", you're implying something *akin* to free will. If you truly disbelieved your own agency, you'd see tossing a murderer into prison is no more or less quaint than a chemical reaction or supernova.

On 4/2/21 9:26 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Another reactive high-order function. Quaint, really.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Free Will in the Atlantic

Yes, law enforcement is a like a chemical reaction with more errors -- sometimes the bag of meat with a badge throws the wrong bag of meat in a box, and sometimes the bag of meat who ended the other bag of meat gets away from the bag of meat with a badge.

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 9:30 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free Will in the Atlantic

Ha! By "quaint", you're implying something *akin* to free will. If you truly disbelieved your own agency, you'd see tossing a murderer into prison is no more or less quaint than a chemical reaction or supernova.

On 4/2/21 9:26 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Another reactive high-order function. Quaint, really.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Pieter Steenekamp

Re: Free Will in the Atlantic

Yes, and?
Self-supervised deep learning self-learns how to optimize a utility function. Just a bag of silica.
The fact that I learn how to behave to keep out of jail says exactly nothing about free will.

On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 at 18:33, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

Yes, law enforcement is a like a chemical reaction with more errors -- sometimes the bag of meat with a badge throws the wrong bag of meat in a box, and sometimes the bag of meat who ended the other bag of meat gets away from the bag of meat with a badge.

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 9:30 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free Will in the Atlantic

Ha! By "quaint", you're implying something *akin* to free will. If you truly disbelieved your own agency, you'd see tossing a murderer into prison is no more or less quaint than a chemical reaction or supernova.

On 4/2/21 9:26 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Another reactive high-order function. Quaint, really.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Free Will in the Atlantic

Where does the utility function come from? Does it come from another function or not? Where does that function come from?

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Pieter Steenekamp
Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 9:41 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free Will in the Atlantic

On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 at 18:33, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

Yes, law enforcement is a like a chemical reaction with more errors -- sometimes the bag of meat with a badge throws the wrong bag of meat in a box, and sometimes the bag of meat who ended the other bag of meat gets away from the bag of meat with a badge.

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 9:30 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free Will in the Atlantic

Ha! By "quaint", you're implying something *akin* to free will. If you truly disbelieved your own agency, you'd see tossing a murderer into prison is no more or less quaint than a chemical reaction or supernova.

On 4/2/21 9:26 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Another reactive high-order function. Quaint, really.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

jon zingale

Re: Free Will in the Atlantic

Where there are ways there is will.

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Free Will in the Atlantic

In reply to this post by jon zingale

The perception of agency could be localized to some neural circuitry and then instrumented.
It also wouldn't be practical to calculate where every molecule of H2O percolates to when I water a plant. I wouldn't conclude then that H2O might still have free will.

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of jon zingale
Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 9:29 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free Will in the Atlantic

"""
Was the murder a necessary consequence of holistic trajectory of the
evolving universe? If so, then "free will" is just a perception as Nick
and this paper argue. A high-order reactive set of functions are still just that.
"""

Arguably we would need to be able to calculate such a thing, no? It may be scientifically determined that this problem is provably undecidable.

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

gepr

Re: Free Will in the Atlantic

I think it's incomplete to say "perception" or "experience". It's loopy perception, feedbacks. And that implies that its calculation would involve some estimation of limits, convergence, fixed points, etc. And that's computationally distinct from the non-loopy percolation of water through soil.

On 4/2/21 10:17 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

> The perception of agency could be localized to some neural circuitry and then instrumented.
> It also wouldn't be practical to calculate where every molecule of H2O percolates to when I water a plant. I wouldn't conclude then that H2O might still have free will.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of jon zingale
> Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 9:29 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Free Will in the Atlantic
>
> """
> Was the murder a necessary consequence of holistic trajectory of the
> evolving universe? If so, then "free will" is just a perception as Nick
> and this paper argue. A high-order reactive set of functions are still just that.
> """
>
> Arguably we would need to be able to calculate such a thing, no? It may be scientifically determined that this problem is provably undecidable.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

1234 ... 7