The illusion of free will

[Sarkus]

Here it is again. I'm only going to repeat it once:

And it explains nothing, that is why I dismissed it the first time. All you say is "There is indeterminacy. I make a choice. This is freewill." There is simply nothing in your explanation that actually explains how your freewill is anything other than the mere perception of it.
But as said, if that is what you consider freewill to be (i.e. judged by what you consciously perceive) then you have no grounds for even commenting one way or the other on whether it is actually as we perceive it to be.

And for the record I don't rely only on freewill and consciousness just "as perceived." That's why I've gone thru the trouble of showing how chaos theory and emergence explain it as a physical process.

But you don't. Merely saying "There is indeterminacy and/or chaos. I make a choice. This is freewill." is no explanation at all.
Emergence merely says that it is a pattern that has properties not reducible to the constituent parts. This also does not say that it is not caused, or beholden entirely to either determinism or the indeterminacy that comes through randomness and/or chaos. So again, no explanation at all.
And your only explanation is words to the effect of "I make a choice", and you judge the nature of that choice through how you perceive it. This is you limiting your understanding to mere perception, and limits you from considering what is actually causing your actions.

So far you offer nothing even close to that. You just assume, as I pointed out before, the black and white dichotomy of either being caused or uncaused. Randomness or causation. That's not an argument. That's an assumption, and one which from your own theory you couldn't help making.

Whatever caused me to make the theory is irrelevant, as we have discussed previously.
And if causation is not a black and white issue, a digital issue, then tell me what else there is other than being caused or uncaused (and "self-caused" is merely another term for uncaused, in that it has no preceding cause)? So before you criticise a "black and white dichotomy", tell me what the third option is?
And ffs, I have said all along what the assumptions I have been using are, and have said all along that if you accept the assumptions then the conclusion follows. And that if you disagree then either show the error in logic or show how the assumptions are wrong.
You have done neither.

You yourself claim the universe is inherently indeterministic. How does this jibe with your claim that everything is built on the principle of cause and effect?

Why do you think they are mutually exclusive?
Indeterministic merely means that if you start with the same inputs then you could end up with a different output.
But the output is still caused by the inputs.

But only probablistically as you conclude. One wouldn't hold you to anything like a "probabilistic determinism", whatever that means.

Strict determinism holds that if you apply exactly the same inputs you get exactly the same output.
Probabilistic determinism (there may be a better phrase for it) holds that for exactly the same inputs there are many possible outputs, and there is a probability function that governs which is more likely to occur etc. The actual output that occurs is random but in as much as it adheres to the probability function. The same way that the output of a sic-sided dice roll is random, but adheres to the probability function that each face is likely to occur 1/6th of the time.
Given that you don't really seem to understand the terms I'm using, I'm surprised you argue against them.

Not uncaused at all. CAUSED by my conscious decision to act in a certain way. I am iow a causal agent of my own actions. That's what my experience shows me.

That's what you perceive, that your consciousness is the initiator of an action/decision.
But for the consciousness to be the ultimate initiator it must itself be uncaused. One can not be the initiator (i.e. initial cause of something) if one is caused to do something.

Anything posited to be a cause is imputed with causal efficacy in itself. Doesn't mean it isn't itself caused. It just means that causation is happening all along the way, and not just at the Big Bang. The wind truly does cause the vase to fall even as it is also caused. Once again, causation without predetermination.

It only "causes" in terms of our perception being that that is what has happened. But we don't stop to think that the wind is caused by something else (although the Met Office clearly do), and if we do, we don't think that the wind chose to knock the vase down... i.e. it is behaving either with predetermination or with inherent indeterminism through randomness.
So yes, the wind causes the vase to knock down. But do you think the wind has freewill? Or is it itself being caused?

But not against the inherent indeterminacy of cause and effect itself which you posit is in fact the case.

I don't say it goes against indeterminacy. Determinacy or indeterminacy is actually irrelevant unless you can show that the indeterminacy is inherently unrandom, and for that to be the case the output must be determined by an outside agency that is itself uncaused.

Yes, I reject premises and conclusions that imply absurd scenarios that don't mesh with reality. So sue me..

First, as long as you understand that arguing from consequence is a logical fallacy, then I won't sue.
Second, you have yet to show that it doesn't mesh with reality. At best you can show that it doesn't mesh with what your consciousness perceives, but as can be shown with simple optical illusions, one's consciousness can be easily fooled by illusions.

Because you are left with a universe where effect doesn't really follow cause at all.

No, you are left with a universe where effects are caused (or random) (i.e. as premised).

And that would explain nothing. The billiard ball did not cause the other billiard ball to roll into the pocked. The Big Bang caused it. Ok..yeah..whatever dude. lol!

Your argument from consequence is noted as such.

Your premise is flawed from the outset because there is not just this either "caused or uncaused" scenario. There is also BEING a cause. IOW, causal efficacy persists over time. That's just the way reality is. To suggest otherwise is simply..well...absurd!

How is "BEING a cause" in any way an alternative to either caused or uncaused? Whatever is "BEING a cause" was either caused to be so (caused) or it was not (uncaused). "BEING a cause" is merely another description for an "effect" that is itself a cause for another effect. So no, you have not shown how the premise is flawed.
But, again, your argument from consequence is noted.

 

[Magical Realist]

And it explains nothing, that is why I dismissed it the first time. All you say is "There is indeterminacy. I make a choice. This is freewill." There is simply nothing in your explanation that actually explains how your freewill is anything other than the mere perception of it.

And there is nothing in your own explanation that explains how the perception of freewill is anything other than that. So don't accuse me of the exact thing you are failing to provide yourself: some evidence that our conscious perception of our own choices is an illusion.

But as said, if that is what you consider freewill to be (i.e. judged by what you consciously perceive) then you have no grounds for even commenting one way or the other on whether it is actually as we perceive it to be.

Why would freewill be what I consciously DON'T perceive. Can you explain a freewill that would occur in any other way than by being conscious of itself? I can't. If there is freewill, it will in fact occur as a will that freely chooses from multiple options. So you are dismissing freewill on the very grounds that it shows itself to our minds to be freewill, when in fact there is no other kind of freewill to be had.

But you don't. Merely saying "There is indeterminacy and/or chaos. I make a choice. This is freewill." is no explanation at all.

I showed how the notion of freewill logically entails indeterminacy by being a choice of equal possibilities. The notion of indeterminacy is thus inherent to freewill because it is a state of being open to multiple outcomes or probabilities. If you don't like that explanation, or don't agree with it, that's one thing. But to say that isn't an explanation of how indeterminism entails freewill is simply disingenuous.

Emergence merely says that it is a pattern that has properties not reducible to the constituent parts. This also does not say that it is not caused, or beholden entirely to either determinism or the indeterminacy that comes through randomness and/or chaos. So again, no explanation at all.

With emergence there is the possibility of top down causation resulting from global system-level properties exerting an influence on the constituents. One example of this is neural synchronization in which the gamma waves propagate thruout the brain to synchronize neural firings. Another is stochastic resonance, in which the white noise of the brain increases its sensitivity to sensory signals.

And your only explanation is words to the effect of "I make a choice", and you judge the nature of that choice through how you perceive it. This is you limiting your understanding to mere perception, and limits you from considering what is actually causing your actions.

Then explain how my making a choice and NOT knowing it would constitute a free choice. It is a simple fact that we have direct phenomenal awareness of our internal states. Hunger, thirst, pain, exhaustion, memory, heat, cold, anticipation, thought, desire, etc. Noone including yourself questions THESE as mere illusions. If I were to say I was tired, surely you wouldn't say "But that is only your perception of being tired. You have no evidence that you are really tired." If I were to say, "This argument is logical", surely you wouldn't say, "But that is only your perception of logic. You have no evidence that it is really logical." The fact that you do this exclusively with that internal state called willing or choosing is thus unfounded and without grounds. Unless you want to concede here and now that every internal state we experience is an illusion based simply on the fact that it is only our perception of a state.

Whatever caused me to make the theory is irrelevant, as we have discussed previously.

If you have no logic to support your theory, and are merely outputting the effects of neural firings in your brain, then why pretend to argue for it logically? Logic entails the ability to think thru ideas and possibilities and decide which conclusions make the most sense. So yes, it is absolutely relevant how you are making this theory and whether it is one grounded in reasoning or in unconscious chains of synaptic firings.

And if causation is not a black and white issue, a digital issue, then tell me what else there is other than being caused or uncaused (and "self-caused" is merely another term for uncaused, in that it has no preceding cause)? So before you criticise a "black and white dichotomy", tell me what the third option is?

You would have us believe that an event can only be caused or uncaused. And that's it. But your very premise that all events are caused entails that the caused will also act as a cause itself. Thus right away we see a degree of freedom opened up by the emergence of a new cause. Brain states are thus caused by previous states, but they also cause future states. And that's where your element of indeterminacy comes in and why while we can trace every event to preceding causes, we can never say with exact certainty what event or events that event will cause next. Because causal efficacy arises anew in every present event. THIS event causing what's next, and then THAT event causing what's next, and so on.

And ffs, I have said all along what the assumptions I have been using are, and have said all along that if you accept the assumptions then the conclusion follows. And that if you disagree then either show the error in logic or show how the assumptions are wrong.
You have done neither.

You assume that there is only being caused and not being caused. I take immediate issue with that assumption since we also have being a cause and not being a cause. This complicates things considerably, and sufficiently enough to invalidate your conclusion that freewill is only an illusion.

Why do you think they are mutually exclusive?
Indeterministic merely means that if you start with the same inputs then you could end up with a different output.
But the output is still caused by the inputs.

But the output is not determined by the inputs. Once again, causation without predetermination.

Strict determinism holds that if you apply exactly the same inputs you get exactly the same output.
Probabilistic determinism (there may be a better phrase for it) holds that for exactly the same inputs there are many possible outputs, and there is a probability function that governs which is more likely to occur etc. The actual output that occurs is random but in as much as it adheres to the probability function. The same way that the output of a sic-sided dice roll is random, but adheres to the probability function that each face is likely to occur 1/6th of the time.

Yah..so what?

Given that you don't really seem to understand the terms I'm using, I'm surprised you argue against them.

Freewill is an illusion AND a reality. You believe in probabilistic determinism AND probabilistic indeterminism. The only problem I have is when you switch terms in midstream and so spin your position from one side to the other to avoid being held down to anything.

That's what you perceive, that your consciousness is the initiator of an action/decision.
But for the consciousness to be the ultimate initiator it must itself be uncaused. One can not be the initiator (i.e. initial cause of something) if one is caused to do something.

Bullshit. One billiard ball is caused to move by another, and so causes another billiard ball to move. One domino causes the next to fall, which in turn causes the next to fall. Happens all the time.

It only "causes" in terms of our perception being that that is what has happened.
But we don't stop to think that the wind is caused by something else (although the Met Office clearly do), and if we do, we don't think that the wind chose to knock the vase down... i.e. it is behaving either with predetermination or with inherent indeterminism through randomness.
So yes, the wind causes the vase to knock down. But do you think the wind has freewill? Or is it itself being caused?

The wind causes and is itself caused. No freewill involved.

I don't say it goes against indeterminacy. Determinacy or indeterminacy is actually irrelevant unless you can show that the indeterminacy is inherently unrandom, and for that to be the case the output must be determined by an outside agency that is itself uncaused.

Or an outside agency that causes and is itself caused.

First, as long as you understand that arguing from consequence is a logical fallacy, then I won't sue.

I disagree. I find it a very useful polemical tool. But then who said polemics had to follow the rules of logic.

Second, you have yet to show that it doesn't mesh with reality. At best you can show that it doesn't mesh with what your consciousness perceives, but as can be shown with simple optical illusions, one's consciousness can be easily fooled by illusions.

Well then since you are trapped in the same consciousness illusion, I guess I should take everything YOU say about it with a grain of salt.

No, you are left with a universe where effects are caused (or random) (i.e. as premised).

And where the effects are themselves causes.

How is "BEING a cause" in any way an alternative to either caused or uncaused? Whatever is "BEING a cause" was either caused to be so (caused) or it was not (uncaused). "BEING a cause" is merely another description for an "effect" that is itself a cause for another effect. So no, you have not shown how the premise is flawed.

So you are now admitting effects can themselves exert causal influence even though they were themselves caused? Good. Which in fact jibes with everything we know. IOW, causes can only occur in the present moment. They can't exist in the past simply because the past no longer exists.

 

[Quantum Quack]

One thing that appears to be often missing from these types of discussions is noting the key difference between "influence" and "determine".
Is it fair to say that everything has an influence on everything but nothing actually determines anything. If so then freewill is a natural outcome because influences are just that influences which implies the lack of deterministic causation. [regarding self animated life forms]

To say: "My decision was influenced by.... " is very different to saying: "My decision was determined by..."

 

[Sarkus]

And there is nothing in your own explanation that explains how the perception of freewill is anything other than that. So don't accuse me of the exact thing you are failing to provide yourself: some evidence that our conscious perception of our own choices is an illusion.

I have explained, repeatedly:
1. if all our choices are caused, and the interaction behaves according the laws of the universe (whether it be deterministic or random) then there can be no initiator of an action other than a random event.
2. Freewill as we perceive it suggests that we are an initiator of actions, and therefore goes contrary to point 1,
3. To allow freewill as we perceive it yet adhering to the first point, the only solution is that freewill as we perceive it is merely a perception... that we perceive it differently to how it actually happens... i.e. illusory.
What in this do you not follow or does not sufficiently explain?

Why would freewill be what I consciously DON'T perceive. Can you explain a freewill that would occur in any other way than by being conscious of itself? I can't. If there is freewill, it will in fact occur as a will that freely chooses from multiple options. So you are dismissing freewill on the very grounds that it shows itself to our minds to be freewill, when in fact there is no other kind of freewill to be had.

I am not dismissing freewill on those grounds but on the grounds that it requires us to be an initiator of actions, and to do so goes against the nature of the universe as assumed (i.e. cause/effect, and probabilistically determined).
Just because something is perceived to be X does not mean it is. Your consciousness can be caught by an illusion, inescapably so. Just look at an optical illusion... your brain can not help but see the illusion.

I showed how the notion of freewill logically entails indeterminacy by being a choice of equal possibilities. The notion of indeterminacy is thus inherent to freewill because it is a state of being open to multiple outcomes or probabilities. If you don't like that explanation, or don't agree with it, that's one thing. But to say that isn't an explanation of how indeterminism entails freewill is simply disingenuous.

It's not disingenuous. I don't dispute that freewill would require indeterminacy, but you are simply jumping from "this is indeterminacy... therefore we have freewill".
What you've done is try to explain the workings of an internal combustion engine by saying "We need petrol" and leaving it at that.

With emergence there is the possibility of top down causation resulting from global system-level properties exerting an influence on the constituents. One example of this is neural synchronization in which the gamma waves propagate thruout the brain to synchronize neural firings. Another is stochastic resonance, in which the white noise of the brain increases its sensitivity to sensory signals.

And? How does this negate the notion of causation... whether top down or otherwise? And where, even within top-down causation, are the top levels the absolute initiator of actions, uncaused in and of themselves by anything else?

Then explain how my making a choice and NOT knowing it would constitute a free choice. It is a simple fact that we have direct phenomenal awareness of our internal states. Hunger, thirst, pain, exhaustion, memory, heat, cold, anticipation, thought, desire, etc. Noone including yourself questions THESE as mere illusions. If I were to say I was tired, surely you wouldn't say "But that is only your perception of being tired. You have no evidence that you are really tired." If I were to say, "This argument is logical", surely you wouldn't say, "But that is only your perception of logic. You have no evidence that it is really logical." The fact that you do this exclusively with that internal state called willing or choosing is thus unfounded and without grounds. Unless you want to concede here and now that every internal state we experience is an illusion based simply on the fact that it is only our perception of a state.

First, none of the other internal states you mention defy the very notion of what goes on at a micro-level, none of them defy the notions of cause/effect and probabilistic determinism. Freewill is the only one of those that requires conscious actions to be the initiator of events yet at the same time ignore everything that gives rise to the situation, to the decision making (other than what is consciously perceived). There has never been an argument that what we perceive does not exist, only that it does not exist as we perceive it to be... the same way that optical illusions are not how we perceive them.
Second, being aware of gross internal states such as you describe are only at the conscious level. We are not aware of everything that goes on in our body, only of what are consciousness becomes aware of - by definition of what consciousness is. Our consciousness does not know what every atom is doing, how every atom is interacting with each other, with the environment.

If you have no logic to support your theory, and are merely outputting the effects of neural firings in your brain, then why pretend to argue for it logically? Logic entails the ability to think thru ideas and possibilities and decide which conclusions make the most sense. So yes, it is absolutely relevant how you are making this theory and whether it is one grounded in reasoning or in unconscious chains of synaptic firings.

No it's not - as already explained: logic is what it is, it doesn't alter whether one follows it through unconscious chains of synaptic firings or not. The issue is whether the logic is sound, not on how the logic was put together.

As explained with the bullet and gun, it doesn't matter whether I drove to the rendezvous and shot you consciously, or whether everything was done remotely (someone controlling me) or whether I am a p-zombie: the rather important thing is that you have been shot. The gun and bullet is the logical argument. How the argument was put together is irrelevant, and a red-herring on your part.

You would have us believe that an event can only be caused or uncaused. And that's it.

Yes. Can you think of a third option?

But your very premise that all events are caused entails that the caused will also act as a cause itself.

Usually, yes. This is the nature of cause and effect. The only exceptions would be anything that then ever fails to interact with anything else.

Thus right away we see a degree of freedom opened up by the emergence of a new cause. Brain states are thus caused by previous states, but they also cause future states. And that's where your element of indeterminacy comes in and why while we can trace every event to preceding causes, we can never say with exact certainty what event or events that event will cause next. Because causal efficacy arises anew in every present event. THIS event causing what's next, and then THAT event causing what's next, and so on.

So you are content with just showing a can of petrol and saying "this is how the internal combustion engine works".
I am comfortable with indeterminism, and my argument still holds for it, allows for it (e.g. with probabilistic determinism), while still keeping freewill (as in our consciousness being ultimate initiator of an action) off the table as anything other than a perception.

You assume that there is only being caused and not being caused. I take immediate issue with that assumption since we also have being a cause and not being a cause. This complicates things considerably, and sufficiently enough to invalidate your conclusion that freewill is only an illusion.

Logical fallacy on your part. I could just as easily have said "everything in the universe is either being cooked or not being cooked". If you want to say that other options exist that complicate matters such as "everything in the universe is either a cook or not a cook" then how does that in any way invalidate what I have said? How does it complicate matters at all? All you are doing is changing how you divide the universe, wearing a different "there are two people in the world..." t-shirt. You have not actually said how there is a third option among the division of "being caused" and "not being caused".

But the output is not determined by the inputs. Once again, causation without predetermination.

I know - that is what indeterminacy means. But the importance is that the indeterminacy is random (i.e. not selected without there being a cause behind the selection), and it being caused.

Yah..so what?

You did say "One wouldn't hold you to anything like a 'probabilistic determinism', whatever that means."
So forgive me for providing an explanation so that you are aware of what it now means.

Freewill is an illusion AND a reality. You believe in probabilistic determinism AND probabilistic indeterminism. The only problem I have is when you switch terms in midstream and so spin your position from one side to the other to avoid being held down to anything.

No, probabilistic determinism IS indeterministic in nature... the same inputs can give rise to different outputs. But the same inputs give rise to the same probability function of outputs.
And yes, freewill is an illusion AND a reality - the reality is merely different to the what we perceive (i.e. illusion).

Bullshit. One billiard ball is caused to move by another, and so causes another billiard ball to move. One domino causes the next to fall, which in turn causes the next to fall. Happens all the time.

Being the initiator means that no cause came before.
Where in these examples of yours is that the case.

The wind causes and is itself caused. No freewill involved.

Indeed.

Or an outside agency that causes and is itself caused.

If there is an outside agency then you are just moving the chain one step further back, but it remains intact. I.e. it raises the question of "what caused the outside agency".
Further the interaction with the outside agency follows the laws of the universe - whether we hold it to be deterministically or random/indeterministic.

I disagree. I find it a very useful polemical tool. But then who said polemics had to follow the rules of logic.

Whether it is useful or not does not alter the fact of its logical fallaciousness. So disagreement is unwarranted.

Well then since you are trapped in the same consciousness illusion, I guess I should take everything YOU say about it with a grain of salt.

No - again the journey is irrelevant - it is the argument itself that is important.

And where the effects are themselves causes.

Yes.

So you are now admitting effects can themselves exert causal influence even though they were themselves caused? Good. Which in fact jibes with everything we know. IOW, causes can only occur in the present moment. They can't exist in the past simply because the past no longer exists.

Fortunately we are able to utilise abstract notions such as time.
But if you're seriously going down this line of argument, not only is it equivalent to you stick fingers in your ears and ignoring everything that is said, but you're inviting others to hold you to it in future, such that any reliance you may place on what has previously happened is negated simply because "the past no longer exists".

 

[Quantum Quack]

is there a difference between "caused" and "influenced"?
and if causality is infinitely derived then how can freewill NOT be present.
I believe it is only because you are referring to causality in finite terms that you are able then to consider freewill or freedom of choice to be an illusion. If the infinite is applied properly and consistently then what?

 

[Sarkus]

is there a difference between "caused" and "influenced"?

The totality of influences = the cause.
Something won't change unless there is a cause (or if the change is random).
There are individual influences that make up the cause, some of which may be more significant than others.
So while X may be an influence in the output of Y, and Y may have been influenced by X, the output Y would have been caused by the totality of influences (A, B, C, D... etc).

and if causality is infinitely derived then how can freewill NOT be present.

Can you explain what you mean by "infinitely derived", and then how this makes any difference to whether freewill is present or not?

I believe it is only because you are referring to causality in finite terms that you are able then to consider freewill or freedom of choice to be an illusion. If the infinite is applied properly and consistently then what?

I would actually think it is the other way round: it is because I am referring to infinite causality, going all the way back to t=0 etc, that I can say it is illusory.
It is surely only when you look at causality as finite, that it stops at an arbitrary "initiator" (such as our consciousness), can we then say freewill is not illusory.

 

[barcelonic]

One thing that appears to be often missing from these types of discussions is noting the key difference between "influence" and "determine".

Good thing to touch on, but I do think people have been discussing this. It is the fundamental difference between determinism and compatibilism.

Determinism maintains that although no one thing determines our actions, there are an almost infinite number of 'influences' which determine an action.
If you believe that "everything has an influence on everything" then it's not that far from determinism. You are right that "nothing actually determines everything", but only in the sense that 'no one thing' determines everything.

If we continue to look for 'one thing' that causes an action then of course we'll never get anywhere and we can never arrive at a deterministic conclusion. But of course we are not that simple, and neither is reality.

As far as I know nobody here is suggesting there is one single cause of an action - the determinists here are saying that influences (plural) are responsible for 100% of an action, thus collectively determining it.

 

[Magical Realist]

I have explained, repeatedly:
1. if all our choices are caused, and the interaction behaves according the laws of the universe (whether it be deterministic or random) then there can be no initiator of an action other than a random event.

That doesn't even make sense. So because there are causes to our choices, and these are in accord to the laws of the universe, then those causes are random? That doesn't follow at all.

2. Freewill as we perceive it suggests that we are an initiator of actions, and therefore goes contrary to point 1,

You mean flawed premise number 1. I can be an initiator of actions and still be caused because every effect is also a cause. I can fix myself lunch because I am hungry. I don't have to, but I choose to. I have causal agency because my conscious brain state is not predetermined by previous causes. Only influenced by them. One again, causation without predetermination. Indetermination leading to freewill.

3. To allow freewill as we perceive it yet adhering to the first point, the only solution is that freewill as we perceive it is merely a perception... that we perceive it differently to how it actually happens... i.e. illusory.

I reject point 1. I don't assume that to be a cause you have be a random process. Perhaps you can show me why this logically follows because I'm definitely not seeing it.

I am not dismissing freewill on those grounds but on the grounds that it requires us to be an initiator of actions, and to do so goes against the nature of the universe as assumed (i.e. cause/effect, and probabilistically determined).

Nonsense. As you already admit an effect (to be caused) is also a cause in itself. So just like the wind that knocks over the vase, we can cause things to occur at the holistic system level of the brain that were not possible at the bottom component level. This doesn't mean we aren't derived from causes or influences, just as the wind is no less caused for being a cause itself. The indeterminacy--the freedom from being completely predetermined--arises from the causal efficacy of being a new cause of future effects.

Just because something is perceived to be X does not mean it is. Your consciousness can be caught by an illusion, inescapably so. Just look at an optical illusion... your brain can not help but see the illusion.

We can't help seeing an illusion but we can choose to believe it or not. A man in the desert may always see the mirage of water, but he can see thru it as just an illusion based on his logic and experience.

It's not disingenuous. I don't dispute that freewill would require indeterminacy, but you are simply jumping from "this is indeterminacy... therefore we have freewill".

If you can't make the logical leap from being less determined by previous causes and more undetermined in terms of future outcomes, then there's nothing I can do for you. Freewill is the ability to do otherwise. To choose from among multiple equally probable states.

What you've done is try to explain the workings of an internal combustion engine by saying "We need petrol" and leaving it at that.

Actually I've shown how the engine needs petrol in order to run. But whatever..

And? How does this negate the notion of causation... whether top down or otherwise? And where, even within top-down causation, are the top levels the absolute initiator of actions, uncaused in and of themselves by anything else?

You should know by now that a nonlinear or chaotic system is totally caused and yet indeterminate as to its outcome. When the system starts behaving as whole emergent structure it is inserting novelty into it's own behavior. The whole behaves in accord to its causes, but unpredictably so because it has causal efficacy over it's own course of development.

First, none of the other internal states you mention defy the very notion of what goes on at a micro-level, none of them defy the notions of cause/effect and probabilistic determinism. Freewill is the only one of those that requires conscious actions to be the initiator of events yet at the same time ignore everything that gives rise to the situation, to the decision making (other than what is consciously perceived).

If there is consciousness of an internal state, then yes this would defy what goes on at the microlevel because the perception of the internal state would itself only be the ephemeral outcome of that internal state, as causally determined as the state itself. If my logic is simply a sequence of physical events of my brain, there is no sense in saying the logic is real because logic assumes the conscious derivation of the conclusions from the premises. The sense of necessity derived by the sequence of logical steps would only be an illusion created by microphysical chains of brain events. So no, freewill or causal agency is not the only one invalidated by determinism. The consciousness of any internal state assumes a freedom and independence from that internal state such that it can be known to be going on to begin with.

as never been an argument that what we perceive does not exist, only that it does not exist as we perceive it to be... the same way that optical illusions are not how we perceive them.

So you're now saying freewill DOES exist, only not in the way we experience it? What other way would this be? Surely you have some idea of how a freewill could exist without being a conscious experience of making choices and witnessing our own causal effects on our own actions.

Second, being aware of gross internal states such as you describe are only at the conscious level. We are not aware of everything that goes on in our body, only of what are consciousness becomes aware of - by definition of what consciousness is. Our consciousness does not know what every atom is doing, how every atom is interacting with each other, with the environment.

It is sufficient for consciousness to only be aware of the internal state as a state: the state of being tired, or hungry, or sick, or whatever. Consciousness doesn't need to be an awareness of every atom in our brains to be consciousness.

No it's not - as already explained: logic is what it is, it doesn't alter whether one follows it through unconscious chains of synaptic firings or not. The issue is whether the logic is sound, not on how the logic was put together.

The logic of your argument would only be an illusion if it were the mere effects of microphysical processes. The sense of necessity you are imputing to the sequence of the thoughts themselves would really be just chemical reactions in your brain. So yes, equating logic to brain events invalidates that logic as anything convincing in itself. The fact that I can feel the same certainty by thinking thru the same argument simply means that the same microphysical chains are happening in my brain as they were in yours. A shared hallucination of certainty and nothing more.

As explained with the bullet and gun, it doesn't matter whether I drove to the rendezvous and shot you consciously, or whether everything was done remotely (someone controlling me) or whether I am a p-zombie: the rather important thing is that you have been shot. The gun and bullet is the logical argument. How the argument was put together is irrelevant, and a red-herring on your part.

Logic is more like moral culpability in this analogy. The responsibility for the crime hinges entirely on you shooting me consciously instead of being a p-zombie. Morality shares with logic this same precondition of self-derived necessity. IOW, in both cases only the truly conscious person is acting in accord to either morally culpable or logically culpable principles. And in both cases acting involuntarily as a result of chemicals in the brain invalidates any attribution of either moral or logical action.

I am comfortable with indeterminism, and my argument still holds for it, allows for it (e.g. with probabilistic determinism), while still keeping freewill (as in our consciousness being ultimate initiator of an action) off the table as anything other than a perception.

What else would freewill be? Freewill can't even exist without being our perception of it as such. So you are assuming a type of freewill that can't exist to begin with. As if there could be an unconscious freewill that conscious freewill is only an illusion of. I reject that premise. Conscious freewill presents itself exactly as it really is.

A Logical fallacy on your part. I could just as easily have said "everything in the universe is either being cooked or not being cooked". If you want to say that other options exist that complicate matters such as "everything in the universe is either a cook or not a cook" then how does that in any way invalidate what I have said? How does it complicate matters at all? All you are doing is changing how you divide the universe, wearing a different "there are two people in the world..." t-shirt. You have not actually said how there is a third option among the division of "being caused" and "not being caused".

Because being a cause introduces a third state in the otherwise bipolar one of either being caused or being uncaused. Your whole argument seems to hinge on this either/or condition. That freewill is either caused or uncaused. Nothing more. In fact the third option is being a cause itself--of not just being a passive effect of previous causes but being an active cause of future effects. One might say that being a cause is being caused and yet uncaused at the same time in that there is determinacy yet indeterminacy in the outcome. Merely probabilities of outcomes, as indeed you already agree to be the case.

You did say "One wouldn't hold you to anything like a 'probabilistic determinism', whatever that means."
So forgive me for providing an explanation so that you are aware of what it now means.

You explained strict determinism. I had no need to learn what that is.

No, probabilistic determinism IS indeterministic in nature... the same inputs can give rise to different outputs. But the same inputs give rise to the same probability function of outputs.
And yes, freewill is an illusion AND a reality - the reality is merely different to the what we perceive (i.e. illusion).

I guess then with this sort of paralogical parliance you would then have no problem with something being caused and not caused at the same time.

Being the initiator means that no cause came before.

No..a domino falling intiates the next one falling while itself being caused to fall by the previous one. Being a cause and being caused occur at the same time. They are two sides of the same coin.

If there is an outside agency then you are just moving the chain one step further back, but it remains intact. I.e. it raises the question of "what caused the outside agency".

It's a matter of choice how far one wishes to attribute the event in question to another cause in a chain of causes and effects. But after a while it becomes ridiculous tracking it all back to remote factors sinse the number of causes increases geometrically the further we go back. Hence indeterminism again.

Fortunately we are able to utilise abstract notions such as time.
But if you're seriously going down this line of argument, not only is it equivalent to you stick fingers in your ears and ignoring everything that is said, but you're inviting others to hold you to it in future, such that any reliance you may place on what has previously happened is negated simply because "the past no longer exists".

I already admitted that indeterminacy is inherent in the universe, and probably inherent to the nature of time itself. It's just another way of looking at the same issue. I like to remain open to new possibilities.

 

[Sarkus]

That doesn't even make sense. So because there are causes to our choices, and these are in accord to the laws of the universe, then those causes are random? That doesn't follow at all.

That's because your understanding of what I said is not correct. The causes are not random, the output is possibly random (depending on whether you adhere to strict determinism or, say, probabilistic determinism etc).

You mean flawed premise number 1.

Once you have actually understood premise number 1, perhaps you'd like to point out the flaw.

I can be an initiator of actions and still be caused because every effect is also a cause. I can fix myself lunch because I am hungry. I don't have to, but I choose to. I have causal agency because my conscious brain state is not predetermined by previous causes. Only influenced by them. One again, causation without predetermination. Indetermination leading to freewill.

It is perhaps not predetermined, but if it is not predetermined then it is at best random. The indeterminacy comes from that randomness. Do you think randomness gives rise to freewill? If so, how? And again, none of your "there is indeterminacy, therefore freewill" rubbish.
What causes you to make choose A rather than B? Your analysis only goes as far back as saying "I do. I am the causal agent," but as repeatedly said, that is because you are consciously unaware of the causes any further back. If you ignore that they exist then you will consider yourself to be the initiator of actions. I choose not to ignore them within my analysis.

I reject point 1. I don't assume that to be a cause you have be a random process. Perhaps you can show me why this logically follows because I'm definitely not seeing it.

Again, go back and actually understand what I wrote. At no point did I say that a cause is necessarily a random action. The interaction is either deterministic or random within a probability function. The probability function may be narrow (a coin toss - with two equally possible outcomes) or wide (a million-sided dice with equally probable outcomes) or the function may be a bell-curve around a "likely" outcome etc.

Nonsense. As you already admit an effect (to be caused) is also a cause in itself. So just like the wind that knocks over the vase, we can cause things to occur at the holistic system level of the brain that were not possible at the bottom component level. This doesn't mean we aren't derived from causes or influences, just as the wind is no less caused for being a cause itself. The indeterminacy--the freedom from being completely predetermined--arises from the causal efficacy of being a new cause of future effects.

First, freedom from being completely predetermined is not in and of itself freewill. You keep bleating "there is indeterminacy... therefore we have freewill" yet you never show how it is even remotely possible other than through defining freewill along the lines of how we perceive it (e.g. the "we make choices, therefore we have freewill") definition that never considers the causes behind the choices beyond what we perceive / are consciously aware of.
Second, being a cause does not mean it is the initiator. And freewill requires us to be the initiator, not just merely a cause.
With Newton's Cradle, for example (as someone has previously exampled, would you say that one ball initiates the next. It might cause it, as part of the chain, but it is merely doing what it has to. The initiator of that specific causal chain (if looked at in isolation) would be whoever first set it in motion. But then there is the question of the larger causal chain of what caused the person to do it etc.
The only thing that is nonsense is your continual position of "there is indeterminacy... therefore we have freewill" with nothing in between.

We can't help seeing an illusion but we can choose to believe it or not. A man in the desert may always see the mirage of water, but he can see thru it as just an illusion based on his logic and experience.

Sure, but when the illusion affects the very arbiter of what we perceive and understand, then we can not help but accept the illusion.

If you can't make the logical leap from being less determined by previous causes and more undetermined in terms of future outcomes, then there's nothing I can do for you. Freewill is the ability to do otherwise. To choose from among multiple equally probable states.

I'm not going to do your work for you. If you're going to leave your argument as "there is indeterminacy... therefore we have freewill" and expect others to fill in the gaps for you then there is little point in this discussion.

Secondly, to merely choose from among multiple equally probable states is what computers can do. Do they have freewill?
Thirdly, you have not shown that you actually do have the genuine ability to do otherwise. Every example you care to put forward to support your case will, as they have all so far been, be limited in scope back to what we consciously perceive, and will not look at the underlying causes of what we perceive. So please, give me an example of a genuine ability to do otherwise, where you can show that you had a genuine ability to do otherwise, where that sense of being "genuine" is not merely limited to what you are consciously aware of.

Actually I've shown how the engine needs petrol in order to run. But whatever..

Actually you haven't. You've accepted that if you don't put petrol in then the engine won't work, and thus concluded that it must need petrol. But what you still have not shown is how the petrol is converted into useful work through the engine... i.e. how the engine actually works.

You should know by now that a nonlinear or chaotic system is totally caused and yet indeterminate as to its outcome. When the system starts behaving as whole emergent structure it is inserting novelty into it's own behavior.

You do know that even strict determinism can lead to emergence, don't you?

The whole behaves in accord to its causes, but unpredictably so because it has causal efficacy over it's own course of development.

"Causal efficacy" in this regard is unproven and an unwarranted assumption. You're basically begging the question.

If there is consciousness of an internal state, then yes this would defy what goes on at the microlevel because the perception of the internal state would itself only be the ephemeral outcome of that internal state, as causally determined as the state itself.

Ever heard of feedback loops? That is all that is going on when one is aware of an internal state. And no, it does not defy what goes on at the micro-level.

If my logic is simply a sequence of physical events of my brain, there is no sense in saying the logic is real because logic assumes the conscious derivation of the conclusions from the premises. The sense of necessity derived by the sequence of logical steps would only be an illusion created bymicrophysical chains of brain events. So no, freewill or causal agency is not the only one invalidated by determinism. The consciousness of any internal state assumes a freedom and independence from that internal state such that it can be known to be going on to begin with.

That is indeed what the illusion makes us think.
As said previously, without the notion of freewill as consciously perceived, we would effectively be p-zombies. The notion of freewill as consciously perceived is, in my view, a necessity of consciousness.
But this alters nothing of the arguments as presented.

 

[Magical Realist]

That's because your understanding of what I said is not correct. The causes are not random, the output is possibly random (depending on whether you adhere to strict determinism or, say, probabilistic determinism etc).

Let's review what you said again:

I have explained, repeatedly:
1. if all our choices are caused, and the interaction behaves according the laws of the universe (whether it be deterministic or random) then there can be no initiator of an action other than a random event.

What does the "initiator of an action" mean other than a cause? And what does saying that is nothing other than a random event mean other than the cause is random. You have a very ambiguous way of stating things. Perhaps next time you should say THE OUTCOME is random instead of the initiator of action is random. And for the record, you premise still doesn't make sense. How does the "outcome is always random" follow from "our choices are always caused in accord with the laws of the universe?

Once you have actually understood premise number 1, perhaps you'd like to point out the flaw.

I just did, after you had to update what it actually was saying for me.

It is perhaps not predetermined, but if it is not predetermined then it is at best random.

No..it could also be underdetermined and open to new causal influences that emerge at the system level. That's what chaos theory shows.

The indeterminacy comes from that randomness. Do you think randomness gives rise to freewill? If so, how? And again, none of your "there is indeterminacy, therefore freewill" rubbish.

I think the brain utilizes randomness as well as chaos in it's generation consciousness and freewill. It is the free part of the freewill equation. The other part is the will, which is a system level top down exertion of causation on its bottom level chains. How many more times am I going to have to say this?

What causes you to make choose A rather than B? Your analysis only goes as far back as saying "I do. I am the causal agent," but as repeatedly said, that is because you are consciously unaware of the causes any further back.

I have an explanation for my actions. They come from my own choice to act. What are you offering? Nothing. A universe where anyone can at anytime subvert a cause by asking what caused the cause ad infinitum. Think I'll opt for the explanation that actually explains things.

If you ignore that they exist then you will consider yourself to be the initiator of actions. I choose not to ignore them within my analysis.

I'll ignore these mysterious hidden causes until I have some evidence of their existence and not until then..

Again, go back and actually understand what I wrote. At no point did I say that a cause is necessarily a random action. The interaction is either deterministic or random within a probability function. The probability function may be narrow (a coin toss - with two equally possible outcomes) or wide (a million-sided dice with equally probable outcomes) or the function may be a bell-curve around a "likely" outcome etc.

Initiator of action = cause and not outcome. Speak more clearly if you want to be understood.

First, freedom from being completely predetermined is not in and of itself freewill.

Never said it was. But it IS a precondition of freewill and the ability to consider equally possible outcomes when making a choice.

You keep bleating "there is indeterminacy... therefore we have freewill" yet you never show how it is even remotely possible other than through defining freewill along the lines of how we perceive it (e.g. the "we make choices, therefore we have freewill") definition that never considers the causes behind the choices beyond what we perceive / are consciously aware of.

No..like I said I have more than adequately shown how freewill is possible with chaos theory and the kind of indeterminacy that arises from emergent properties. This is in addition to the self-evidence of my own conscious internal state of willing, a state you have yet to show is in any way just an illusion.

Second, being a cause does not mean it is the initiator. And freewill requires us to be the initiator, not just merely a cause.

Initiating an action is not being the cause of an action? Great, here we go again with the semantic parsing...

With Newton's Cradle, for example (as someone has previously exampled, would you say that one ball initiates the next. It might cause it, as part of the chain, but it is merely doing what it has to. The initiator of that specific causal chain (if looked at in isolation) would be whoever first set it in motion. But then there is the question of the larger causal chain of what caused the person to do it etc.

The "initiation" of the movement of the next ball by the previous ball IS causation. It carries the previous action in itself as its own behavior and properties: its mass and size and speed and momentum. To initiate means to start. That is what the ball is doing. It is starting a motion that was not there before. And it does this by itself being the cause of that action.

The only thing that is nonsense is your continual position of "there is indeterminacy... therefore we have freewill" with nothing in between.

Not explaining this again. You are either too obtuse to understand or else being disingenuously denialist to preserve some assumption you've made.

Sure, but when the illusion affects the very arbiter of what we perceive and understand, then we can not help but accept the illusion.

You seem to think you understand the illusion is just an illusion. So obvious it is possible to see thru it. At least according to your theory.

I'm not going to do your work for you. If you're going to leave your argument as "there is indeterminacy... therefore we have freewill" and expect others to fill in the gaps for you then there is little point in this discussion.

I have explained it already. Get over it.

Secondly, to merely choose from among multiple equally probable states is what computers can do. Do they have freewill?

Computers choose? I never knew that. I was unaware they were capable of conceptualizing probable states and choosing between them. Do you have some references for this remarkable feat of technology?

Thirdly, you have not shown...

Blah blah blah..snip redundant denial of what have shown over and over again with chaos theory.

Actually you haven't. You've accepted that if you don't put petrol in then the engine won't work, and thus concluded that it must need petrol. But what you still have not shown is how the petrol is converted into useful work through the engine... i.e. how the engine actually works.

Yes I have. I'm not going argue with you about this anymore.

You do know that even strict determinism can lead to emergence, don't you?

Deterministic regarding its causes, and unpredictable regarding its outcome. Just as I've been saying all along.

Ever heard of feedback loops? That is all that is going on when one is aware of an internal state. And no, it does not defy what goes on at the micro-level.

And yes, it does defy predetermination at the micro level.

That is indeed what the illusion makes us think.

Now if only you could provide the evidence that it IS an illusion. But I won't hold my breath.

As said previously, without the notion of freewill as consciously perceived, we would effectively be p-zombies. The notion of freewill as consciously perceived is, in my view, a necessity of consciousness.
But this alters nothing of the arguments as presented.

But in your denial of freewill we ARE nothing more than P-zombies. We wind up in a universe where logic, thought, perception, willpower, freedom, and morality are not real but only illusions created by our brain. That's a delusional state I happily reject on the grounds that it makes life irrational and meaningless.

 

[Sarkus]

What does the "initiator of an action" mean other than a cause?

It means we are the initiator of the chain that led to the action, not just a link within the chain that led to it.

And what does saying that is nothing other than a random event mean other than the cause is random.

Because, other than the Big Bang (of which we know very little), the only uncaused events are random in nature. Thus everything else must be merely part of a chain, and not the initiator of the chain.

You have a very ambiguous way of stating things. Perhaps next time you should say THE OUTCOME is random instead of the initiator of action is random.

I say what I mean. The initiator IS random if it is an uncaused event.

And for the record, you premise still doesn't make sense. How does the "outcome is always random" follow from "our choices are always caused in accord with the laws of the universe?

Where did I say the "outcome is always random"? I said the "outcome is possibly random" - and the possibly is dependent on whether the universe is probabilistic, deterministic or some other variety.

I just did, after you had to update what it actually was saying for me.

Then point out the flaw again, because at the moment I can see nothing other than your misunderstanding or misquoting of what I said.

No..it could also be underdetermined and open to new causal influences that emerge at the system level. That's what chaos theory shows.

No it doesn't.
Chaos theory merely shows that the outcome is rather dependent upon the initial conditions. Any slight perturbation in initial condition (i.e. inputs) leads to significantly different outcomes. That is what chaos theory says, and chaos theory would hold whether a deterministic or indeterministic universe.
And what does being underdetermined have to do with anything. All that means is that there is insufficient information to identify/know which it is, not what the underlying system actually is.
If all I know is that someone is wearing a hat, it is underdetermined from that evidence what colour hat they are wearing. But that underdetermination in no way affects the colour of the hat being worn.
So what does underdetermination have to do with anything?

I think the brain utilizes randomness as well as chaos in it's generation consciousness and freewill. It is the free part of the freewill equation. The other part is the will, which is a system level top down exertion of causation on its bottom level chains. How many more times am I going to have to say this?

And you still don't see how all you are saying here is "there is indeterminacy... hence freewill"? Okay, now you've accepted randomness into the equation (a subset of indeterminacy), but otherwise this still says nothing. Do you not see that?

I have an explanation for my actions. They come from my own choice to act. What are you offering? Nothing. A universe where anyone can at anytime subvert a cause by asking what caused the cause ad infinitum. Think I'll opt for the explanation that actually explains things.

I have an explanation for my actions, at least as far back as my consciousness. Beyond that I don't know what causes me to act the way I do, but I am not ignoring that they are caused, and that the interactions along the way behave according to the laws of the universe (deterministic or otherwise). So we both have the same explanations for our actions, at least as far back as we are consciously aware of them.
Think I'll opt for the explanation that actually explains things as far as I can, yet doesn't ignore the fundamental laws of the universe.

I'll ignore these mysterious hidden causes until I have some evidence of their existence and not until then..

We all ignore them in practice. That's the nature of us not being conscious of them. As for evidence of their existence, it stems from the assumptions: cause and effect holds, and the universe acts on a probabilistically determined basis. From here it is a logical necessity that any action you perform is either caused and the output (the thing you are conscious of that you think causes your action) is the result of a (probabilistically) determined interaction, or it is the result of randomness.

Initiator of action = cause and not outcome. Speak more clearly if you want to be understood.

First, how is this comment of yours in any way related to the quote of mine you think it is responding to?
Second, where have I not been clear that the initiator of an action is the cause... and not just a cause (as in one link in a chain) but THE cause... i.e. the one that initiates the chain. You do know what "initiates" mean, don't you?

Never said it was. But it IS a precondition of freewill and the ability to consider equally possible outcomes when making a choice.

Yet all you have offered so far is "there is indetermination... therefore we have freewill."
Yes, you're holding a petrol can. Now tell me how the internal combustion engine works. You have singularly failed to do so thus far.

No..like I said I have more than adequately shown how freewill is possible with chaos theory and the kind of indeterminacy that arises from emergent properties. This is in addition to the self-evidence of my own conscious internal state of willing, a state you have yet to show is in any way just an illusion.

You have shown no such thing. All you have done is say (repeatedly) "there is indetermination/chaos/randomness... therefore we have freewill." You have not shown how freewill is possible.

Initiating an action is not being the cause of an action? Great, here we go again with the semantic parsing...

It is being the INITIAL cause of an action. What of the term "initiate" do you not understand?

The "initiation" of the movement of the next ball by the previous ball IS causation. It carries the previous action in itself as its own behavior and properties: its mass and size and speed and momentum. To initiate means to start. That is what the ball is doing. It is starting a motion that was not there before. And it does this by itself being the cause of that action.

You are immediately qualifying it by saying "by the previous ball". I made no such qualification, so your analogy is invalid.
But as I have always said, if all you are willing to do is go back as far as your consciousness to understand what causes an action, then so be it. I am not doing that... I am going back further.

Not explaining this again. You are either too obtuse to understand or else being disingenuously denialist to preserve some assumption you've made.

You have not explained it once, let alone "again".
If you really have nothing with which to fill the gap between "there is indeterminacy..." and "... hence we have freewill" then just admit it. Otherwise detail it. You haven't so far.

You seem to think you understand the illusion is just an illusion. So obvious it is possible to see thru it. At least according to your theory.

It's possible to see through it in theory, but impossible in practice. Our practice is dictated by our consciousness, and our consciousness causes us to act within the confines of the illusion.

I have explained it already. Get over it.

Where? Post it. Quote where you have done it. And then show how it is more than just a case of "there is indetermination... therefore we have freewill."

Computers choose? I never knew that. I was unaware they were capable of conceptualizing probable states and choosing between them. Do you have some references for this remarkable feat of technology?

Why does it need to conceptualise probable states? It merely needs to be able to make a selection from one of equally probable states. Whether it is random or informed... why does that make a difference to whether it is a choice or not.
Further, just look at IBM's Watson... it not only attempts to understand the nature of question, but are you telling me that it doesn't "choose" what the answer is?

Blah blah blah..snip redundant denial of what have shown over and over again with chaos theory.

Your refusal to not only provide what is requested, but to also fail to understand that you have not yet provided it, is tiresome.
It really does seem to me that you don't actually have a clue, and that you're just throwing around terms such as underdetermined, chaos theory, and even indeterminacy, without actually understanding what they mean.

Yes I have. I'm not going argue with you about this anymore.

Your refusal to fill in the gaps is telling.

Deterministic regarding its causes, and unpredictable regarding its outcome. Just as I've been saying all along.

Ah yes, another "unpredictable... therefore freewill!" line.
So if emergence can arise from a deterministic universe, are you now saying that freewill can exist within such a deterministic universe, due to such emergence?
I.e. do you think freewill can exist in a deterministic universe? Think carefully about it before you answer.

And yes, it does defy predetermination at the micro level.

Ah, so feedback loops defy the laws of the universe!
Do you know how ridiculous your desire to be contrary has made you become?

Now if only you could provide the evidence that it IS an illusion. But I won't hold my breath.

The evidence across science supports the underlying assumptions from which the rest is derived. Science is built on the notion of cause and effect, and thus far has not been shown incorrect (even if temporal direction might be shown to sometimes be in reverse).

But in your denial of freewill we ARE nothing more than P-zombies.

No, because we have the illusion of freewill. What I deem to be an illusion of freewill, and what you deem to be genuine freewill, operate in exactly the same way from a practical and conscious point of view.

We wind up in a universe where logic, thought, perception, willpower, freedom, and morality are not real but only illusions created by our brain. That's a delusional state I happily reject on the grounds that it makes life irrational and meaningless.

Your conclusion is false, since it is only freewill that requires something counter to the underlying nature. All the others are compatible with that nature, even if the underlying nature does not have the properties of the higher. But "genuine" freewill requires the underlying nature to act differently than we science knows it to do. This is why freewill can be deemed illusory with no impact on the view or workings of any of the others. To think otherwise just shows how much you misunderstand the arguments as presented.


However, for sake of not wasting my time further, please be warned, MR, that if you continue to claim you have filled in the gap between your various versions of "there is indeterminacy... hence freewill", and fail to provide that gap, then there is nothing further to discuss.

 

[Quantum Quack]

If zero or nothingness is our greatest influence then what does that say for determination?
eg:
The chair was empty so I sat on it..
There was a canvas with nothing on it so I painted...
Nothing or zero is I believe our greatest influence however I wonder if it can be considered as a cause.
To say that "nothing influences me" or that "nothing determines my decisions" is a bit absurd yet it is the non-existence of nothing [ zero] that grants the freedom to move, to act and to do so autonomously. IMO

 

[Quantum Quack]

- the determinists here are saying that influences (plural) are responsible for 100% of an action, thus collectively determining it.

Oh but they are right however the determining influences are those carried by that which does the determining. Thus self determination by way of freewill is not compromised by the determinist position in fact it could be said to be enhanced!

 

[Magical Realist]

However, for sake of not wasting my time further, please be warned, MR, that if you continue to claim you have filled in the gap between your various versions of "there is indeterminacy... hence freewill", and fail to provide that gap, then there is nothing further to discuss.

Oooo...a warning! Save your pathetic threats for someone who cares..

Like I said, I'm not going to repeat a good explanation over and over again just to counter your false claim that it isn't an explanation. Your last post was a weary repetition of that claim ad nauseum. If this is all you are reduced to in arguing your position, then indeed there IS nothing further to discuss. You can lead a horse to water, but you just can't make him think.

 

[Quantum Quack]

The totality of influences = the cause.
Something won't change unless there is a cause (or if the change is random).
There are individual influences that make up the cause, some of which may be more significant than others.
So while X may be an influence in the output of Y, and Y may have been influenced by X, the output Y would have been caused by the totality of influences (A, B, C, D... etc).
Can you explain what you mean by "infinitely derived", and then how this makes any difference to whether freewill is present or not?
I would actually think it is the other way round: it is because I am referring to infinite causality, going all the way back to t=0 etc, that I can say it is illusory.
It is surely only when you look at causality as finite, that it stops at an arbitrary "initiator" (such as our consciousness), can we then say freewill is not illusory.

I am not sure, But you are possibly referring to time in a way that is confusing.
There is no cause or effect at t=0 [ now ] there is only potential. Cause and effect are temporal illusions created by our need to see time in Linea [sequential] form.
Suffice to say that the past and the future would have to have some sort of material reality for your cause and effect model to be real and not simply an illusion of memory.

... just thoughts
may be explain how the board rider in this video clip is not exercising freewill... [ over infinite influences ]
[video=youtube;7nS_aR8XX_U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nS_aR8XX_U[/video]

 

[barcelonic]

Oh but they are right however the determining influences are those carried by that which does the determining. Thus self determination by way of freewill is not compromised by the determinist position in fact it could be said to be enhanced!

"...that which does the determining" again suggests a singular cause, instead of many. And if by 'that' you mean a sentient being like you or I, then again it is not one thing.

I have a friend who has a bad knee from an accident. He may decide not to do something one day because it would put his knee at risk, or his whole body were he to fall. He may want to do this thing but can't because of his knee, and his knee has been hurt purely by accident.

If I were to ask him he would claim his knee as a part of him. It is 'his knee'. But this decision not to engage in the activity would be a decision his mind wanted to do and his knee essentially chimed in and warned him not to.

This is a primitive example because the same could be said for various parts of his brain and other parts of his body like his hormones, which again are not him. My point in recent pages has been that when one starts to examine the issue in this way, the entirety of what constitutes his identity can be reduced to parts which are beyond his control. Therefore there is no 'him'.
Or he could choose to believe that some of the parts in his brain are him while the others are not and his body is not (or is) and so on. He can effectively decide which parts he wishes to take credit for and leave out the rest. I would say he is wrong to take credit for any of them, but of course he can choose and we all do tend to do that.

 

[Quantum Quack]

"...that which does the determining" again suggests a singular cause, instead of many. And if by 'that' you mean a sentient being like you or I, then again it is not one thing.

I have a friend who has a bad knee from an accident. He may decide not to do something one day because it would put his knee at risk, or his whole body were he to fall. He may want to do this thing but can't because of his knee, and his knee has been hurt purely by accident.

If I were to ask him he would claim his knee as a part of him. It is 'his knee'. But this decision not to engage in the activity would be a decision his mind wanted to do and his knee essentially chimed in and warned him not to.

This is a primitive example because the same could be said for various parts of his brain and other parts of his body like his hormones, which again are not him. My point in recent pages has been that when one starts to examine the issue in this way, the entirety of what constitutes his identity can be reduced to parts which are beyond his control. Therefore there is no 'him'.
Or he could choose to believe that some of the parts in his brain are him while the others are not and his body is not (or is) and so on. He can effectively decide which parts he wishes to take credit for and leave out the rest. I would say he is wrong to take credit for any of them, but of course he can choose and we all do tend to do that.

Fair comment...
However as I suggested in the video clip of a man riding a surf board on a monster wave. The material universe provides an excellent playing field upon which we can make choices upon. The material universe includes the physical human body. This belief is in the main associated with the fact that we as scientist have yet to discover the nature of our wills and what the source of that will is. We have yet for example to discover why "sleep " is essential, Not just rest but the ability to loose consciousness. To say that our hormones influence our decisions and choices, would be valid I feel but to say that they determine with out our allowing them to is another. Regardless as you have alluded to it depends on what you refer to as identity. If I am my hormones and I am influenced by those hormones then I am my hormones and it is the sum total determining influences that I utilize in the formulation of my free willed decisions. It is mt will after all and it is what determined the "My" or the "I" that is critical in this debate.
All hormones I would suggest are DNA encrypted, are identifiably mine. All aspects of my physical form are identifiable in this way as a unique individual. So anything that I do is my responsibility and If I am encumbered by subconscious influences that I have continued to allow to dominate in my choices then that is also my free willed decision.

It is not enough for me to say "Aw but the addiction to adrenal thrill seeking drives me to make the choices I make" and then claim I have no free will.
Suffice to suggest : "The more you master your own body/mind by knowing "thyself" the more freedom/freewill of will you have.

The sheer fact that "nothingness" zero or void is the most significant determining influence is very telling in this debate. For "nothing" to be so influential is asking "How can nothing influence my decisions" because in my opinion it is the nothing ness , the zero point inside your head and every cell, the voids of unconsciousness that exists with in the waken body, that grants you a perspective from "nothing looking outwards". As a New Zealand scientist Peter Lynds once argued, the only reason we can perceive movement at all [ as relative ] is because we are looking from the vantage point of nothingness [ zero ] and it is my contention that this nothingness is the source of our freedom to make choices even if encumbered by the baggage of our hormones and conditioning, environment etc. If it were not for this fact of our center of perception the ability to consider things in temporal terms, to witness movement as relative to our own would be impossible. [ another thread perhaps. ]

I have often argued that the freedom to choose is available only because we have the ability to seek nothingness when we wish to "zone out" rest, "sleep", suicide and most importantly the ability to NOT choose.

My point in recent pages has been that when one starts to examine the issue in this way, the entirety of what constitutes his identity can be reduced to parts which are beyond his control. Therefore there is no 'him'.

Why do you think they are beyond his control. It could be estimated that the degree of self mastery achieved by most humans in their life time is a mere 8-10%... This says a great deal for the potential freedom thus freewill afforded by achieving greater percentages..

 

[barcelonic]

What I mean by our hormones being an influence is that we have hormones which govern almost every aspect of our physiology, such as thyroxine which does a lot of things including regulating the speed at which our body runs - our metabolic rate. Somebody may be asked to dance at a nightclub and may well refuse based on what they think is their decision but is in part influenced by them having a slow metabolism and therefore being less likely to enjoy fast music.
"If i am my hormones and am influenced by those hormones" - it is either one or the other, for if we are our hormones and have free will then we can decide what it is those hormones are doing at any moment. None of us are responsible for creating our fingerprints nor are we responsible for our ancestors having continued their lineage, and therefore I don't see something being unique as being an indication of identity - if we have free will then we should be able to control all of ourselves. If we cannot control a part of us then that part cannot be subject to our will. I am not in control of the growth of my hair but my hormones certainly play a role there too. It is easier to place a claim on our subconscious minds being a part of us than it is to say that our hormones or DNA is a part of us. Of course I am arguing that there's little difference ultimately, but I do agree that it is easier to reach my conclusion with the latter than with the former.

Like with hard drugs, addiction is not the entirety of the thought process, but no single thing is.
Besides sensory experience what is there exactly to suggest free will in the first place? And given how the illusion of free will explains our sensory experience away just as well as the real thing, i'd be keen to know what else you would say leads one to ever think our will was free to begin with.

I'm afraid you lost me with the nothingness.
Although the 'ability to not choose' sounds to me like the 'ability to choose not to choose', because we are not in a perpetual state of choosing but instead choice is the deviation from the norm; the exception to the rule. Yet as we know we do not always choose to fall asleep, and as I myself know all too well we sometimes can choose to sleep and yet be unable to do so. I don't think that choice and sleep necessarily go hand in hand.
Forgive me if I've misunderstood this though as I didn't comprehend the preceding paragraph.

The 8-10% statistic was only concluded after starting on the presumption that we do have free will. For if not, there is no self-mastery to be had.
I would say that the hormones are beyond his control. I would say that someone born with the empathy centre of their brain smaller than average is, similarly, not responsible for this shortcoming (such as psychopaths). But if I step away from the decision-making process for a moment and focus only on the notion of self, I would also say that all parts of the human body are not a part of the self. We cannot control anything about our tissue or our ligaments etc... Am I hairy? I would say yes because other people would understand anything different to be a lie, but am I really? Some would answer to this question something like 'My body is but I am not' trying perhaps to be clever, but then what makes them think that their mind IS them and their body is not? They did not give rise to, or create their own bodies but neither did they create their own minds. I did not choose to be born in the UK instead of Rwanda but am I lucky? After all I did not choose my brain structure any more than I chose my birthplace.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I believe the debate will continue, however one of the aspects that drives my interest is the well recorded historical need for humans to strive for freedom. And I believe this is a process of evolution towards the manifestation of freewill they intuitively know they already have but oppressed from making full use of.

Human behavior through out history has demonstrated that something is driving the need to escape the hive... and escape the oppression [ use of drugs to do so etc] To liberate ourselves.
Even our pursuit in the sciences is to ultimately empower us with greater freedom from the oppression of ignorance and so on...
Also it is the "trade in freedom" that is essentially the real currency in this world. IMO
so yes I am presuming freewill's existence as a starting point and as yet have failed to read or see anything that contras that premise and yet see every day evidence to support it.
I believe freewill is the "holy grail" of humanity and our most treasured and protected aspect of our natures.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I'm afraid you lost me with the nothingness.

well... ask yourself "How important is "nothing", vacant space, void, tomorrow, yesterday, in influencing your decisions? [aka: Self determination]
The next moment is non-existent until it arrives, so how important is the nonexistent future to those choices you are about to make?
How important is the unknown etc?
As I mentioned in an earlier post to Sarkus, cause and effect only exist as a temporal abstraction. There is only the present moment so how can one say that that present moment is caused [past tense] with out resorting to the "Illusion" of cause and effect or predetermination?
"Free will is an act of improvisation or colloquially playing hopscotch on a pretty rough mine field in the present moment."