u/Rthadcarr1956

I generally like debating ideas, but debating compatibilism verses incompatibilism, I find tedious. It might appear that this debate should be decided by looking at the empirical evidence and seeing which theory better comports with the evidence. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Compatibilism is a debate about the nature of determinism, and this is necessarily an ontological debate. I find all ontological debates tedious.

For example, the compatibilist argument that if you rewind time after you made a difficult decision, you would always make the identical choice. To them this proves there is never any leeway in our choosing. However, there is no, and can be no, experimental evidence for this. It is just a baseless claim that boils down to an ontological "yes it is," "no it's not" stalemate.

There appears to be no difference of the either view in explaining the objective observations of free will behavior. Anytime apparent indeterminism is observed, the compatibilist rightly claims that they do not need to subscribe to determinism.

Let's look at an example. Suppose we observe how rats navigate a maze that requires each rat to choose the correct way to turn at 4 "T" junctions in order to escape. We follow the statistics of which way the rat turns at each junction over the course of 10 trials. We do this for all 10 of the rats and compile the results. These types of experiments have been done many times over the years. The pattern invariably found is that initially the choice for each junction was a random 50%. The rats proved to the investigators (and probably to themselves) that either choice was possible at each of the 4 junctions. As the rats repeated the maze, the statistics changed. The choice that led out of the maze instead of a blind alley increased in frequency. By the 10th iteration, most subjects ran the maze making the correct choice at each of the 4 junctions. Random choices became purposeful choices as the maze was explored and knowledge of the subject increased. How should we think about this result?

The libertarian explanation is that rats have a genetic influence to escape a maze and will choose randomly if no information is available as a basis for choice. Choosing randomly we can all agree is not indicative of free will. However, their experience in running the maze gives them the information to make a rational, free will choice in later trials. Libertarians believe that at each junction the subject chooses according to its purpose, based upon the information it has. How do compatibilists view these results?

Some compatibilists might agree with the libertarian account. Some might say that the initial choices, though they appeared random, were actually manifestations of complex deterministic factors that just happen to appear as a 0.50 frequency. Some might think that choosing which way to go in a maze is totally unrelated to the type of free will needed for human moral responsibility. How do you explain these results?

I am optimistic that the free will debate will largely be decided based upon what we learn in the next 30 years or so. Many people do not realize that there is a synergy of the AI boom with our understanding of neuroscience. We gain many insights and spawn new hypotheses about how human minds learn and choose from studying the algorithms used for AI.

One of the best ideas we have that is used in AI algorithms and could be the paradigm that neurons actually use to learn and make choices is called active inference or sometimes referred to the free energy principle. This is a type of predictive, top down learning/choosing algorithm where neurons make predictions of what to do based upon minimizing entropy (surprise). In fact, what has sometimes been described as elan Vitale, might be the ability of living systems to maximize survivability by actions that decrease their entropy.

Myself, I would much rather argue about how deterministic our behavioral algorithms actually are than argue about the meaning and ontological significance of randomness.

Cause and effect is the best and perhaps the only paradigm to explain and understand the physical world. Much of philosophy is based upon causal relationships. However, cause and effect, though always applicable to some degree, is not a very productive paradigm for describing and explaining living systems. There is an alternative framework that I believe is more productive in living systems and other systems that are more informational based rather than physical based.

I have often remarked here that most of our learned behavior arises from what is called “trial and error” type learning. But perhaps, a more apt description could be called “exploration and iteration.” This aligns with recent treatments of informational systems where dimensions of parameters form a design space of all possible combinations of these elements. To find the optimal combination of parameters for any function, this space is explored by one or more types of algorithms. Each region in this design space is tested and the desirability of the result adds additional information as to the suitability of this combination of parameters. The process is iterated to explore the rest of the space until one is confident they have found the optimal conditions. This is a standard paradigm in neural net systems. The important aspects are to explore an informational design space one point at a time, evaluate each result, and repeat this until optimal values are reached. There is cause and effect inherent in this method, but this method of understanding better describes our observations in many cases.

Let’s use a couple examples to see how this applies to human and animal behavior. Humans initially learn to speak by imitation of others. We seem to have a genetic desire to mimic sounds of others speech and also to communicate verbally with others. To do so requires coordinating all of the possible independent contractions of muscles that move the tongue, lips, diaphragm, and vocal chords in a particular combination. All of the possible combinations of these contractions constitutes the design space of human speech. Various babblings and vocalizations are tried out to find the proper sequence of these contractions in an attempt to imitate what the child hears when others speak to them. When they land on a sequence of contractions that produce a sound resembling what they hear others make, they repeat that sequence making slight variations in order to get a closer approximation to what they hear. 

Children also become aware that their caregivers are providing feedback to help the process along. This is a slow tedious process that takes the time, attention, and efforts of the subject child. But success is accompanied by great satisfaction of accomplishment by both the subject and the caregivers, the process rarely fails to produce ever more coherent speech. 

All voluntary skills, walking, throwing, catching, swimming, singing and a host of others are all developed by exploration of the design space of possible sequences of contractions of the muscles required for that skill. It is important to note that there is no inherent level of competency a subject should achieve. The action of throwing a rock or a ball can be developed to a wide range of competencies from virtually unskilled to that of a professional pitcher or bowler. It is important to note that it is the subject that chooses how much time and effort is devoted to reach their desired level of competency that is possible for them. 

Exploring a design space of all possible variations of a sequence can be accomplished using well defined and ordered algorithms or the algorithms can use random trials and successive approximations. Since we know both deterministic and indeterministic modes of exploration are possible, it should be a matter of interest to philosophers what type of paradigm is actually used. However, in either method, the subjects time, attention, and efforts provide the leeway and sourcehood required for the of use of those skills thus acquired in a freely willed manner. 

It is a simple exercise to use such a paradigm to describe and explain behaviors other than voluntary actions. Even developing moral behavior can be described as exploring a design space of possible actions and moving toward those actions that are moral and away from those that are not.

Libertarians believe in free will and do not think the determinism observed in physics requires that making choices is an impossible operation. So we first should define free will, and I will offer two definitions. The base definition of free will is that free will is the ability to make real choices among different options that are each realizable. Right away I want to state two extended observations. First, is that this ability evolved down through the Animal Kingdom, generally becoming more complex and powerful in the later evolved groups. This is not really important except to note that this is not a sudden acquisition of Homo sapiens. Second, the operation of choosing is done by the evaluation of information. Choices do not depend upon the summation of physical forces or energies. Choices and preferences are based upon reasons, perceptions, memories, and other informational aspects of reality, and all of these are inherently subjective. Free will thus requires a subject, and their epistemic state is the controlling variable in their choices.

The second definition of free will, the extended definition if you will, adds a requirement that free will be competent to provide a basis for human moral responsibility. By definition this extended definition can only apply to humans, but I would argue should be expected to operate in every important respect through the same means and processes as the basic definition given above. Therefore, I will confine the balance of this discussion to the basic definition of free will. 

The libertarian claim that sentient animals do indeed have an ability to make real choices is extraordinary in the sense that it is an ability that we do not share with rocks, bacteria, or even modern plants. Philosophers have long noted that free will is in this respect a very special power that should be explained for this reason as well as for its relation to human morality. Throughout history, there have been those that doubted that free will does actually exist and think that free will may just be an illusory feeling that we experience. These skeptics demand that for free will to exist as claimed, we have to explain two things. The first thing to explain is how does free will exist when all of physics is deterministic? How is it possible to make real choices when the physical particles that make up are deterministic and lacking free will?Surly, free will is not possible because none of the particles that we are made of have any leeway of action that would allow for free will. This seems to be irrefutable logic, but alas is actually the well known fallacy of composition. Particles can in fact be arranged in a pattern or system where the nature of the system can in fact be different from the nature of the individual particles. 

The second objection to free will is a more general philosophical problem of authorship. How does one come by this ability to choose and why is the system indeterministic rather than having the same deterministic nature as Newtonian mechanics? When I choose to vacation at the beach instead of the mountains, how is it that there is any leeway in the workings of my mind such that both outcomes are actually realizable, rather than the single outcome I eventually select being predetermined by my prior history? Describing how we develop this leeway of action into a sourcehood of free will is what consumes most of the time and thought of today’s libertarian philosopher. 

It is quite clear that we do not have free will at conception or probably even at birth. But almost all humans develop this ability to choose in childhood to a sufficient degree to become responsible adults. What is the developmental process that causes or initiates the development of free will in young children? 

While we are not born with free will, we are of course born with a genetic endowment that provides us many different urges and desires. In neonates, there are only a few behaviors available to respond to these basic desires for food and comfort. As we develop physically and mentally, we begin to explore the design space of all possible human actions. We can envision that this is an infinite space, temporarily bounded by those adjacent possibilities that we may presently explore. As we explore different possible actions, more new possibilities arise than are circumstantially eliminated. Therefore, the genetic urges to move about and explore the environment causes children to act, but this causation is general rather than specific. It compels children to crawl and eventually run about, but cannot and does not specify in which direction to move, when to start, how fast to move, and all the other details of voluntary behavior. These details are left to the discretion of the individual subject, and at the beginning of childhood, are observed to be quite random and arbitrary. Children explore the design space not only of their environment, but also the design space of their potential actions by a process that mostly resembles a random walk. The random choices (or more aptly selections) children make when engaged in this exploration cannot be considered free will choices because as defined above, free will choices require an evaluation of information rather than simply a random selection of actions. So, how do we get free will from the initial exploration of possible actions?

As children explore the space of all actions that are adjacently possible (that is they are possible given the current circumstances of the individual subject), they are also remembering what they do and evaluate how beneficial the results of their actions are in satisfying their wants and needs. Thus, random actions are not freely willed, but they do provide the knowledge that is the sourcehood of future free willed actions. Free will is initially based upon what is learned from the exploration of possible actions. Actions that the subject finds beneficial bear repeating and further exploration. Those that produce undesirable results like pain or discomfort are remembered and generally avoided in the future. The time, attention, and effort expended in this exploratory process is the true sourcehood of our free will. Each individual subject follows a separate path of exploration, such that even identical twins develop differently. 

These are my observations that lead me to the conclusion that the process of obtaining the knowledge required to make free will choices provides the sourcehood of our free will ability. As a parent, teacher, and student of developmental psychology, my observations of how children learn lead me to the conclusion that libertarianism is the best explanation of free will. I maintain that this ordinary observational evidence is all that is required to formulate a coherent theory of free will.

We can build and program computers. This is what a computer entails:

We purposefully arrange matter such that the flow of energy follows circuits that emulate logical operations. We purposefully arrange these logic elements to sequentially execute a process of evaluating information. The information is input into the system as a pattern in the energy flow, and this is then compared to values already stored in memory or specified in the programming. This produces an output that was desired by the programmer. This output has a causal power equal to the power in the energy flow used to operate the logic elements. There is no magic or other metaphysical elements involved.

We can compare this to human brains. Brains entail:

Neurons self associate together under genetic influence so that a flow of energy follows pathways that emulate logical operations. The self arrangement is a purposeful response to sensory inputs and genetic imperatives that evolved to enhance the organisms survivability, and operate to evaluate input information. Information is input into the brain by sensory receptors that produce a pattern of energy flow, and this is compared to values in memory. This evaluation produces an output with a causal power equal to the energy flow used to operate the logic elements. There is no magic or other metaphysical elements involved.

We can all add our interpretation of how brain function does or does not produce free will. I will offer my libertarian view. The self association of neurons constitute our learning which is initially mostly by trial and error experimentation. I suggest that the learning and self association of neurons does not follow a deterministic algorithm. Instead, there is much variability and probability involved in these processes. Desired behaviors can be made more probable by practice which evokes neural plasticity to increase the probability of the desired behavior.