The Crouching Tiger
What is a choice? Are choices predetermined, and therefor meaningless? Or is there something real we can call a choice, or decision?
Setting
Crouching patiently in the underbrush is an adult tiger watching the world around her. She’s identified an animal that might be her next meal. Period. You know how cats crouch, looking very relaxed and at the same time like a coiled spring ready to go off. She’s looking for exactly the right moment, the moment where she’s more likely to catch the pray then miss it. Nothing certain, but if the small animal, she’s watching, makes one step in the wrong direction, the tiger will jump and probably get the reward.
First: what does it mean to make a choice? Does the tiger "choose" to pounce?
In a slightly different case, does a self-driving car "choose" to go when the light turns green. Some say that no choice was made: this is just the result of programming.
A third, completely obvious case is that of flipping a switch and turning on a light. We will consider the implications of determinism in these three specific cases.
Everything below here needs to be reformatted. Currently just stream of consciousness writing.
I believe that the behaviors of the tiger are DETERMINED by the tiger itself. That is, based on the knowledge of the tiger, which includes memories and past experiences as well as skills that have been developed, the tiger will sit in a situation of constantly running forward looking scenarios on the likelihood of catching the prey, and pounces when it decides the odds are in its favor. These are predetermined, but the determination is purely on the contents of the tiger, so even though it is determined, we still say the tiger decided (made a choice) to pounce.
In the case of the self driving car, I agree that it not independently choosing what to do. This is because the car behavior is largely from downloaded software, and the behaviors of the car are causally connected to software decisions made at the factory.
The tiger on the other hand is isolated from all other tigers, even its mother. The knowledge of the tiger is the net sum of all its experiences. Give two tigers to identical sets of experiences for all their lives, one can expect they learn all the same things, and would make the exact same decision on when to pounce. Since the choice is based entirely on their knowledge, did they really make a choice? Or was it the experiences that determined the action, with the tiger actually doing anything?
The idea I am trying to get across is that of "causal closure" or maybe "causal coherence".
There is a very simple case: I flip a switch, and a light comes one. The light did not choose to go on, it did so because the electricity started flowing. The electricity did not choose to do this, it was the switch that closed the circuit. but the switch didn't choose this either, my finger pushed it. My finger didn't choose either, but rather something within me made this choice. Everything from my choosing up to the light becoming bright was causally closed.
Causality is difficult to discuss because we want to think about the ONE cause of a particular thing. There is no single cause. The wires had to exist. The light bulb glass had to be clear. And million other things. But the point is that all of these things, the particular situation, act in a predictable way. The interactions overall are determined. I can flip the switch dozens of times and the same thing happens.
But the tiger is NOT causally consistent with its environment. Why not? Mainly because it learns but there is more to it than just learning. The self-driving car will learn things, but it is not a tiger.
This is where I need to talk about regions of stability and regions of chaos. All interactions in the universe interact in determined ways. But along with everything in the universe, there is a small amount of completely undetermined activity. Emergent structures resist this indeterminism. It is important that the indeterminism is small. The decay of nuclei and the spontaneous production of particles disturb small structures of the universe. Everything that happens is amplified by the universe, and for the most part it cancels out, but a small disturbance can become a large difference after a suitable amount of time.
Emergent structures are (1) large and (2) resist the effects of the small scale indeterminism. Thus a table is solid. Below the table a nuclear decay causes a beta ray that hits the table, but the atoms in the table are fixed in place with the electromagnetic bonds. The atom hit is displaced a bit, but all the other atoms pull it back into place. The upward momentum of the beta ray is distributed through the table, but the table does not rise because gravity is pulling it down, into a stable position resting on the floor. The result of the beta ray is entirely dissipated into heat which itself is dissipated into the room. The effect of of the indeterminism is RESISTED.
The same can not be said for the free molecules in the air. A beta ray hits them, and they bounce around cascading. The breeze is effectively chaotic, and can not be predicted. The table is stable, but the air is chaotic.
A living animal is also a stable structure -- although quite a bit more complex than the table. Still, the effect of the chaotic influence -- a breeze for instance -- is resisted. Within the stable structure, determinism reigns. The heart beats. The cells constantly grow and replace each other.
The thought patterns of the tiger are determined by the contents of the tiger's body. The contents of the tiger's body was formed from the influence of the environment. Can we say that the tiger then makes no choices? My thesis here, if I can get it together, is that the region of chaos outside of the tiger SEPARATES the tiger from any and all causal determination outside of itself.
With the light switch, everything is causally determined all the way back to my decision to turn on the light. But what if someone had just asked me to turn on the light? That someone emitted some sound waves, picked up by my ear, interpreted by me as a request to turn on the light. I figure out where the switch is and when it is within reach, I flip it on. Can we then say that I made no decisions, no choices? Can we say that it was really the other person that turned on the light?
Generally, no, we do not say that the other person turned on the light. I could have refused to turn on the light, if for some reason "I didn't want it on". That is to say, my own history, knowledge, and preferences, as well as my own predictions of what might happen, are relevant in whether or not the light turns on. Why is this different? Because my actions are determined by what is within my body -- a realm of stability within the chaos of the world.
It is common to say that I am the sum of my experience. I am not the water in my blood or the calcium in my bones. I am not even the nerves. Instead, I am the WAY the nerves are connected. As I go through life, my experiences build me, as I myself act on the world. I change whenever I learn something new. I think it is fair that when I make a choice, it is the case that the choice is determined by the specific configuration of the nerves at the time. Even though the breeze a day earlier affected me, that choice is not made by the breeze.
Consider a particular stark scenario: I am walking down the street and somewhere in an alternate universe an exact copy of me is walking down an identical street. The only difference between those scenarios is a slight bit of chaos: a breeze. On the first street the breeze lifts up a piece of paper on a signboard to reveal an advertisement for my favorite band performing in a few weeks. In the second world this does not happen, and I have no knowledge of the concert. In the first world i pause, think, and make plans, and in a few weeks attend the concert. In one world I choose to go to a concert. In the other I do not.
How can one possibly say that my life events were determined before I was born? The chaotic events are indeed chaotic and unpredictable, and what this shows is that microscopic indeterminism can cause large scale differences in my lived experience, and make me a different person. Charles Dickens' book Great Expectations reflects this sentiment perfectly. Even though all interactions have a determined outcome, you can not predict the course of events over long periods of time.
Who made this choice? Was the choice made by the breeze? I think not, even though the breeze played a key role in the unfolding of events.
The chaotic events around us, and the interactions we have with others form us. We don't have much choice over what experiences we have. We make choices that effect our experiences (can decide where to live, of which concerts to go to), but the chaotic world presents us with fundamentally unpredictable events. A given event might produce a predictable change in me, but because the events I actually will receive is not predictable, there is no way to predict how I will be molded over time. Given complete knowledge of a five-year old, it is impossible to know what they will be like at 10 years old. Therefor, you can't say that the actions of a 10 year old are determined by the state of the 5 year old. You similarly can't say their actions are determined by the chaotic events around them. The only thing we can say, is that even though material interactions are deterministic, we still find that the actions of the 10 year old are CAUSED BY the contents of the 10 year old's body and nothing else. The actions of chaotic interactions over the years have separated the 10 year old from the rest of the world, and from the past self as well.
The tiger then actually chooses when to pounce. And that is what we observe. We see animals that are in control of themselves, and not the world controlling them. The animal has memory, and skills, and those are needed to survive.
But we don't need to conclude that there is some supernatural force outside of determinism to explain how this happens. My thoughts are determined because my body (and my connectome) are macro level stable emergent structures. And it is a good thing that my thoughts are determined, because it means I will get the same answer every time I add 2+ 2. That is a good thing. But at the same time, I completely own my actions. I can't blame the world for my liking Cherry Garcia ice cream, even though my experiences with the world formed those opinions.