Sorry about the massive posts but I was unable to participate for a while. They are separated into a post for Gill then one for the more rational people.
Why would increased randomness promote free-will?Now, if you please, would you answer how that automatically promotes the part that I have both bolded and underlined?
As I understand the argument as it has been framed here, the determinism being cited is a hard determinism which is a polar opposite of free will. If something negates determinism that would facilitate free will. Like a see-saw. That is the impression I have gotten from you and Anfauglir.
Certainly, a true random element (like quantum fluctuations) can lead to multiple outcomes arising from the same starting parameters. I can understand basically how that would work. And complexity might allow those fluctuations to have a larger macroscopic impact than they would in a simpler system. Putting those aside for a moment, though, how could complexity alone possibly give rise to multiple possible outcomes from the same starting parameters? This is your claim. An explanation is called for.
While you addressed this to someone else, I would like to ask for any support you have for the opposite claim you are intrinsically making: that complexity alone can not
give rise to multiple outcomes.
You suggest that the interplay between the "mind" and the brain could lead to different outcomes in the exact same circumstances? (As Azd pointed out, I ignore quantum fluctuations as they would by definition be random, and hence provide no support to any "free will" argument. Assume that any random fluctuations are likewise replicated....if you see what I mean! Where was I.....)
Ah yes - that the mind can somehow influence the brain to come to more than one decision.
But I say again...how?
The mind that we are talking about in the model is, in the same way, identical on each reload. It has the same memories, has developed the same way, has the same preferences and moral codes and so on and so forth. And it too is reloaded into the exact same situation and environment.
So in exactly what manner is it able to sometimes do this, and sometimes do that, as the result of a non-deterministic, non-random, and non-stochastic process? Because what you seem to be saying is that the actions of your mind are NOT the result of its previous status and experience, and that it can make any decision it "wants".
How is a mind that is unaffected by its past or its environment anything other than random?
Underline & bold mine.
Stochastic (from the Greek for aim or guess) refers to systems whose behavior is intrinsically non-deterministic. A stochastic process is one whose behavior is non-deterministic, in that a system's subsequent state is determined both by the process's predictable actions and by a random element.
How can something be non-deterministic, non-random, and non-stochastic since that leaves nothing?
You are constructing a false argument via the bold portion just like the theists do when questioning evolution. I read nothing suggesting that a non-deterministic universe would be unaffected by its past OR that it would be random. Free will does not equal random. And to have free will means making a choice which requires knowing something which requires a past upon which to base decisions.
It seems that you are arguing for hard determinism but have not presented any evidence for it (unless I missed it somewhere). Why not present evidence?
Why do you assume that the random quantum fluctuations can be removed? If they matter then you can not remove them and have a valid argument either way. If they don't matter then they don't need to be removed.
Neither total determinism nor total free will can exist in this universe. There are random fluctuations at least as large as the atomic scale with isotope decay preventing hard determinism on a macroscopic scale. But there are physical laws (physics, chemistry, etc) as well as our own history (mental, sexual, physical) that constrain us.
In a deterministic system, every action, or cause, produces a reaction, or effect, and every reaction, in turn, becomes the cause of subsequent reactions. The totality of these cascading events can theoretically show exactly how the system will exist at any moment in time.
Is there a limited determinism, yes. We can make predictions but they get exponentially inaccurate the farther away they are in time. But a limited determinism doesn't preclude at least a semblance of free will.
How does complexity not introduce differences? In an avalanche just one isotope decaying can change which rocks stick together and which slip at a crucial point. Will there always be a difference, no, since those complex situations can also drown out small variations. But I have not read any evidence to support the claim that complexity does not matter. How can it not matter?
Jaimehlers indirectly touched upon a point which I don't think Anfauglir or Azdgari have read about considering their arguments: chaos theory. Have either of you read anything on chaos theory?
Let's take as a given that all random influences have been excluded from the simulation, so Joe will either have a slice of pizza or a hamburger, and the choice will not be random. You are essentially saying that he will only pick one option - say, pizza - in every single instance of the simulation, whereas I am saying that he may pick either option. Your argument is that because there are no random influences, the choice will be deterministic, thus you can predict with certainty the result of every single simulation. Mine is that you can predict that Joe will pick one of the two options given the way the situation is set up, but that you cannot predict exactly which one even when the initial conditions are identical. I see both as being possible, but without actually being able to test it, it doesn't matter which happens to be more plausible.My point is that - leaving aside random interference - in a situation where ALL factors are entirely identical, B will always follow from A.
Are you saying, in his example, that the guy will always pick pizza? Why when there are equal chances for pizza or a hamburger? How?
That's what I'm asking you to explain - the process by which C can follow A as likely as B from the exact same circumstances, but without it being random or stochastic, since you are determined (heh) that it cannot be deterministic.
While something stochastic is non-deterministic, you seem to be implying that a stochastic system is also non-free will. How can that be so? A stochastic system would by definition be supportive of (at least a limited) free will.