Abstraction or not, the results of the model that uses the abstraction seem to match reality.
The illusion of free will
- Thread starter barcelonic
- Start date
and the reality is the past does not exist nor does the future... so what does that tell you about the models?
In fact one could quite justifiably conclude that "cause and effect" are more illusion-ary than the notion of freewill [which is the topic of discussion]
Possibly, but the conclusion of the "illusory" nature of freewill starts with assumption that cause and effect holds. This was stated from the outset, so if one accepts that assumption then one can not follow the arguments and then disagree with the conclusion by saying that the assumption is wrong.
Don't get me wrong - if you disagree with the assumption up front, then go for it, see where it leads.
But the argument that freewill is illusory starts with the assumption of cause and effect.
Which is no surprise, given that said reality is being viewed through that very model ...
If you didn't care in some way then you wouldn't have been posting and responding thus far.
Yes, my last post was a weary repetition because that is all you are offering, and it is tiresome to have to repeat again and again how it is no explanation at all. It is most telling that you honestly think you have provided an explanation. And all it would take is for you to post it / link to it, and show how it is more than just "indeterminacy... therefore freewill". But so far, nothing.
You haven't been leading any horse to water... just to an empty trough and then blaming the horse for not seeing water in it. Is it any wonder the horse refuses to carry you any further?
Oh yes, the wonders of magical realism ...
Not at all. The model comes after the observations. We do not view reality through a model. We view reality and then model it to be able to make predictions. The model uses cause and effect, and the predictions seem to match our future observations.
Seriously,
How important do you think is the non-existant to this debate?
How influential is an empty bowl? [or an empty tummy]
How would we exist if there was no space to move within?
Is empty space over there the same empty space over here?
'tis still empty so I guess it must be..
How much determining does "nothing " do?
And if so how can it as it doesn't exist?
'tis sort of ironic, IMO , the greatest and most pervasive influence doesn't exist...
(sounds almost theosophical )"Everything is relative therefore influenced and determined by zero" and yet zero is no-existent...
If your observations failed to include emptiness, space, nothing, then your observations are incomplete.
You think it is possibel to make observations without already working with a model?
IOW, that it is possible to know what an apple is and recognize one, even without first defining what one means by "apple"?
That's the view of common-sense realism, yes.
But if you have first learned what an apple is from other people (=model), rather than staring at
.png)
More like we model reality through a model and then based on that come up with a model to make predictions.
Yes.
There are two things here: one is the observation itself; the other is understanding what you are observing.
The first requires no model. The second can do - as you suggest (e.g. you're given an idea of what an apple is, what you observe fits that idea etc).
But, in my view, the act of observing itself does not require a model to work by.
Unless I am misunderstanding what you are referring to as a model.
An interesting question come to mind:
Would you consider a vacuum to be the determining influence or the pressure that needs to fill it?
Would you consider a vacuum to be the determining influence or the pressure that needs to fill it?
barcelonic
Registered Senior Member
This is what i'm getting at QQ... you talk about seeing evidence, and yet I have already pointed out that the illusion is perceived EXACTLY as the real thing would be perceived. Are you disagreeing on what an illusion is?
I am making the point that any and all sensory experience is 100% invalid and that this point is the one point of mine which is irrefutable because an illusion means that we can not possibly tell the difference. Therefore,
whether we see lots of evidence or a little, or none at all makes absolutely no difference because however much evidence we may think we see we would see exactly the same evidence whether or not it is illusory.
So I dont understand how you think that sensory experience of any kind can be used here unless you disagree on what an illusion is?
Do you understand my point here?
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
I only remained interested in the debate to the extent that it remained a debate about freewill, not a debate about whether the explanation I provided suited you or not. I told you several posts ago I wasn't going to argue about that, which was your cue to apparently kick into overdrive and make it about nothing more than that. One wonders if you didn't do that intentionally just to derail the debate.
I explained and then re-explained how the explanation was an explanation. It's all a matter of public record which you can revisit at your own convenience. I'm not going to walk you thru lines of thought which you apparently lack any intuitive feel for. Or perhaps are pretending not to get in order save your assumption. Who knows? I guess I can't really hold you accountable for anything you do since it is in your view all caused by hidden microphysical events.
Blah blah..more flat denials and "no it isn't"s without any attempt at logical argumentation. Seems that horse I bought was more of a stubborn mule..
It remains a debate about freewill. And to the extent that your "argument" appears to have a glaring gap that I have repeatedly pointed out to you (between the environment of indeterminacy and the conclusion of freewll), the onus is on you to address that criticism. But you refuse to. And yes, it is on public record, for anyone else to see, how you refuse to address the issue.
Instead you claim you already have, and if that is true then have the decency to merely point to any explanation within the 11 pages of this thread so far where this gap is actually explained? Because for the life of me I have yet to see any within this thread, despite your repetitive bleating to the contrary.
The ball is in your court.
Instead you claim you already have, and if that is true then have the decency to merely point to any explanation within the 11 pages of this thread so far where this gap is actually explained? Because for the life of me I have yet to see any within this thread, despite your repetitive bleating to the contrary.
The ball is in your court.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
This is apparently crucial to "the freewill is an illusion" argument, the assumption that it IS an illusion in order to dismiss from the get go any phenomenal/experiential evidence of freewill. So here we have a stalemate: those who DO NOT assume freewill is an illusion, and who therefore take it to be self-evident in its phenomenal demonstration, (I choose to raise my hand, and my hand raises) and those who DO assume freewill is an illusion, and who therefore can reject that self-evidence without need for justification.
The burden however lies on those claiming freewill is an illusion to provide some reasoning/evidence for why it is an illusion. Why would an illusion be generated at all seeing the delay of only apparently making a choice would only slow response time and tend not to be naturally selected for? How does causation by microphysical processes rule out the occurrence of indeterminacy on the system-wide level, either in the form of stochastic probabilities, chaotic attractors, or quantum uncertainty? And how does the concept of free will, as a free self-determining process, (thanks for that insight QQ!) logically exclude such degrees of indeterminacy or freedom from single causal chains when in fact such is entailed by the very concept of freewill itself? IOW, a freewill consciously open to multiple possible courses of action as opposed to being programmed to act in only one way by microphysical component-level causal chains?
It's not clear how one can distinguish between the act of observing and understanding what one is observing.
The extent to which one finds one understands something will of course vary. But for there to be a recognition that there is an act of observing taking place at all, some extent of understanding, however limited, is necessary. Otherwise, one wouldn't even be aware that one is observing.
You show your misunderstanding again: it is not an assumption that freewill is an illusion, but a conclusion.
You do understand the difference between assumption and conclusion?
If you think, perhaps, that such arguments are begging the question then please show where.
This can be ignored based on your misunderstanding of the position taken by those who conclude that freewill is an illusion.
Sure, if there are people who start from such an assumption, your criticism here is good to go. Let me know how it works out for you if you can actually ind anyone who starts with such an assumption.
Done (see post #35, #40 in this thread as just 2 examples).
How do we know it delays response time? To say that it does is an unwarranted assumption. You'll note how your freewill (illusory or not) is not required for instinctual actions. But the complexity of our brains, that presumably has given rise to consciousness, is capable of processing much more information, looking ahead, projecting, and using those projections within the decision making. Whether freewill is illusory or not, the processing required would be the same. Therefore the illusion would introduce no additional delay. To claim otherwise without support is begging the question.
It doesn't. Oh, are you trying to say that indeterminacy allows for freewill without actually providing any gap between "indeterminacy exists... therefore freewill"? Let's see if you offer anything here, shall we.... Oh. No. You don't.
You need to show, which you have not done yet, not how freewill requires indeterminacy (which we both agree) but how freewill can arise from indeterminacy.
Your argument so far is nothing but the following:
A requires B.
B, therefore A.
But you can not see the logical fallacy within this / your argument.
It doesn't, regardless of whether freewill is illusory or not. It is the underlying assumptions upon which the case for "freewill is illusory" is built that excludes freewill from being a "free self-determining process" in the first place.
But again, as said from the outset, if you're defining freewill such that you limit it from outset to be judged merely by conscious appearance then this is what you will conclude, that it is real, that is not illusory.
So you've never observed something without understanding what it is?
Indeed. But do we need to model that, or take it as self-evident that we are observing?
But, as said, I may be misunderstanding what you mean by a model in this arena.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
That's strange for someone who was earlier saying: "I start from assumptions. If those assumptions are valid, I think the conclusion holds."
So what are you saying now? That you now start with the conclusion? Ok then. What is the conclusion that freewill is an illusion based on?
Not in the way you use the terms. At one point your argument starts with a conclusion, and then at another it starts as an assumption. You pretty much do the two step shuffle on this just like you do on most your terms (ie. illusion/reality, probabilistic determinism/indeterminism). Don't you get tired of this ambivalence?
You haven't provided any proof that freewill is an illusion. You say it is a conclusion. A conclusion from what?
Everyone who has argued against freewill so far has made the assumption that it is an illusion without providing any evidence for it being such. So the criticism applies precisely to all those arguments.
Not going to reference old posts. Either state your case or I'm done with you.
Because it takes time to choose between two options, and more time than just reacting from causal necessity without choice. You CAN grasp that a thought out course of action requires more time than an instinctual action can't you? Does this really have to be proven to you? If so, google "choice reaction time simple reaction time" for numerous studies showing how the former is always longer than the latter.
Bullshit. Even when we just react based on instinct or a conditioned reflex we can see it takes less time than it does to conceptualize our options and to choose from among them our course of action. It is silly for you to even attempt to claim otherwise.
You seem to have a real problem grasping the inherent logic of certain lines of thought. I find it untypical of someone who otherwise seems so astute. Do you imbibe alcohol when you post online?
Already provided.
Done. Hence the like 30 posts where I've repeatedly showed a chaotic system becoming more sensitive to initial conditions and thus amplifying the indeterminacy/random micro events into an emergent self-determining state.
I've said indeterminacy is a necessary condition for freewill, but never have I said it is a sufficient condition. The causal efficacy of the system level properties emerges and constrains the behavior of the bottom level events. I have even included scientific papers showing how these chaotic attractors are implemented in consciousness. Here's three more: http://books.google.com/books?id=5E...4BEOgBMB0#v=onepage&q=attractor brain&f=falsehttp://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002086http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/57476/ So stop pretending I haven't shown how it can occur.
Oh so now you ARE assuming instead of concluding, this time that freewill cannot be a self-determining process. On what basis do you assume this, other than that it just allows you to conclude that freewill is an illusion?
Since there is no other way TO define freewill except as a consciously transparent process, then yes, freewill IS exactly as it appears to be. Just like thinking your own thoughts is as it appears to be, or remembering your own past is as it appears to be, or anticipating possibilities is as it appears to be, or perceiving the environment is as it appears to be, or believing your own beliefs is at it appears to be, and so on. In other words, we ARE agents in causing our own mental processes. This is a given across the board. There is simply no basis for denying the same exact thing is occurring when we choose to act.
Last edited: