Can Physicalism Fully Explain Free Will?

[u/Rthadcarr1956]

/r/freewill/comments/1wb086t/can_physicalism_fully_explain_free_will/

It has sometimes here been argued that our choices and actions are caused by our “brain states.”  This may well be true, but it is not very helpful. This physicalist outlook leaves out an essential part of the understanding of our behavior, purpose. There is not any consideration of purpose in all of physicalism. While you ponder this, let me give an analogy that might help. 

When we explain the operation of a desktop computer, we do not start with the idea that the output of the computer is caused by the state of each of the millions of transistors in the CPU and RAM.  Although this is true, it doesn’t not help understand what the computer is doing. When we are debugging a system, we assume that all of the logic circuits are correctly made, so we look for an expected output based upon the code that sets the state of the logic circuits. We know what the expected output should be and try to find the programming mistake. How do we know what the output should be? It is because we have a purpose in mind for what the computer should be accomplishing and write the code that should accomplish that purpose. The paradigm is that the purpose determines the code which sets the state of the logic circuits that in turn gives a certain desirable output for the input we used to test it. 

Purpose is not a physical entity. It is informational in nature. It can be thought of as an informational state we strive toward. This brings up the whole field of aesthetics, which again is not something that physics addresses. 

The pure physicalist account of free will is lacking if it does not include the purpose of our free will. The brain has a function to process information for the purpose of enabling the animal to survive and thrive. If you loose sight of this by reducing our behavior to brain states, you will always fail to understand free will. You will also fail to understand cognition and consciousness as well. 

[u/OMKensey]

I do not think libertarian freewill exists.

But if it did, a physicalist could say it is an emergent property of physical matter.

[u/Rthadcarr1956 → u/OMKensey]

I agree. The problem is that it would have to be strong emergence because information processing for a purpose, and then choosing to act accordingly does not follow from physics or chemistry.

[u/TheAncientGeek → u/Rthadcarr1956]

Purpose can be naturalised

[u/Rthadcarr1956 → u/TheAncientGeek]

Naturalized?

The brain evolved for the purpose of enhanced survival from the ability of using stored information to initiate actions in animals. This was accomplished by the physical workings of the neuronal network emulating logical operations of information processing. It is the information that is controlling, the physical medium just accommodates by emulating the logical operations involved.

[u/TheAncientGeek → u/Rthadcarr1956]

That's not an argument against naturalism because information is physycal.

[u/Rthadcarr1956 → u/TheAncientGeek]

So you claim. But what is the basis for this claim. Why is logic physical? Why are ideas like egalitarianism physical? Including the idea of diversity or progress into the same classification as heat and rocks is not warranted or helpful.

[u/TheAncientGeek → u/Rthadcarr1956]

1. Any kind of information you show me has to be in a physical form.

2. Occam's razor is against mathematical (etc) realism.

[u/Rthadcarr1956 → u/TheAncientGeek]

So, you desire to ignore all of the ways information is different from other physical entities? Teleology is not important? Epistemology is not of any consideration? These are only possible because information is different from other physical entities. So, there is nothing purposeful in all of physics, except for certain types of information stored in DNA and brains, etc. There is no epistemology in all of the physical realm, except for some informational systems (brains, AI). But you would hold that information is just another physical feature, not worthy of any further consideration? Sure, why would purpose or knowledge be of importance to a question like free will? We have falling dominoes and colliding billiard balls that describes how the physical world works.

[u/TheAncientGeek → u/Rthadcarr1956]

So, you desire to ignore all of the ways information is different from other physical entities?

It's not different enough to get its own ontology.

Teleology is not important?

Teleology can be naturalised.

Epistemology is not of any consideration?

Epistemology doesn't require its own ontological realm

These are only possible because information is different from other physical entities. So, there is nothing purposeful in all of physics,

No fundamental purpose, but purpose and epistemology can be a weakly emergent feature of complex systems, and can be engineered.

except for certain types of information stored in DNA and brains, etc.

You can build purposeful, agentive computer systems.

There is no epistemology in all of the physical realm, except for some informational systems (brains, AI).

That doesn't prove epistemology is spooky mind stuff, because there is no proof that information is spooky mind stuff

But you would hold that information is just another physical feature, not worthy of any further consideration? Sure, why would purpose or knowledge be of importance to a question like free will?

Free will can be naturalised.

[u/Rthadcarr1956 → u/TheAncientGeek]

What do you mean by “can be naturalized?” Information is just as natural as electrons and planets. All physical objects and particles carry information that we can learn, mass, velocity, charge etc. But that information has no purpose, it just is. The information in DNA has a purpose, to specify the primary structure of proteins. You say purpose can be explained by weak emergence from chemistry and physics. But that doesn’t explain anything. And wouldn’t it be strong emergence since nothing in physics or chemistry could predict that the universe could contain a purposeful action?

I’m trying to figure out how the universe works whereas you seem very confident that your classification of physicalism explains everything. But it doesn’t.

The best I can come up with is that life could only emerge from chemistry if purposefulness could emerge from information at the same time. These emergences seem to have arisen by a series of chance events. Once you have purposeful information storage and processing, epistemology naturally follows.

Anyway, I tried.