The illusion of free will

[wynn]

So you've never observed something without understanding what it is?

To the best of my knowledge and memory - no.
I've always had some understanding of what I was observing, even if that understanding might have later been replaced by a different understanding.

Indeed. But do we need to model that, or take it as self-evident that we are observing?

How can something be self-evident, other than perhaps in some poetic or metaphorical sense?

 

[Sarkus]

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?

Every time you write you just demonstrate you that you either don't understand the structure of logical arguments (not just mine but in general) or you don't understand the logical structure of arguments presented.

So let me simplify it:
Assumptions: A and B.
Argument: A and B lead to C lead to D
Conclusion: D
What of this is causing you issue when I say that "I start with assumptions (A and B). If those assumptions are valid then I think the conclusion (D) holds"?
i.e. if A and B are incorrect then the conclusion may not be as argued.

What I am not doing, which you suggested I am, is starting with the assumption that freewill is an illusion.

It's not rocket science.
So what is it you're struggling with?

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?

I have used the terms as everyone else does: we start with assumptions (i.e. the basis on which the argument rests, the premises). We then reach the conclusion through logical justification. There is no ambivalence, just your inability to understand.

You haven't provided any proof that freewill is an illusion. You say it is a conclusion. A conclusion from what?

From the assumptions: that cause and effect hold, and that the universe is probabilistically determined. As said previously - just look to posts #35, #40 and most things subsequent - as to how you get from one to the other.

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.

Noone has done that. And it is simply dishonest of you to say that it is the case. Everyone has explained how they have reached the conclusion that freewill is an illusion, and they have stated their assumptions (none of which include "freewill is an assumption" or words to that effect). That you don't see that I can only assume is due to deliberate dishonesty on your part, given that it is patently obvious throughout this thread:
Post #31: "Alternative arguments undoubtedly exist if they assume the universe not to be in any way (probabilistically) deterministic, but they'd first need to convince me of the validity of that assumption. "
Post #48: "And I have not relied on Libet or anything other than the assumed principles of cause and effect, and of interactions being probabilistically determined"
Post #90: "The refutation, that it is not genuine, is in the core assumptions (which you are of course free to dispute and reach an alternative conlusion) of everything being caused (whether upward, downward, sideways etc) and that at the micro level the only uncaused things are random."
Etc.

Not going to reference old posts.

He says, requiring elsewhere that I review old posts to see how you have supposedly filled in the gap of your argument between "indeterminacy" and "therefore freewill". Smell that? That would be hypocrisy I'm smelling.

Either state your case or I'm done with you.

Right, to summarise - and please note the assumptions and how none of them are "freewill is illusory":
Assumptions: - cause and effect hold; - the universe is probabilistically determined (as previously defined for you: same outputs lead to the same probability function of output, but the specific output is random in accordance with the probability function).
Note: a probabilistically determined universe is inherently indeterministic, and that is before you build in chaos theory and the like.
Argument: - if every event is caused (the first assumption) and behaves according to the nature of the universe (the second assumption) then each event is either determined (if the probability function is such that same input = a single possible output) or at best random within the probability function. At no point within this is there the ability to interject anything that is not likewise also caused and similarly in obeyance of the nature of the universe.
To interject anything that is not caused would require something that is uncaused. And the only uncaused things we have knowledge of are random in nature. You might consider this another assumption.
Thus the only initiator of chains are either random or began with the start of the universe (Big Bang or whatever).
Freewill as we perceive it has our consciousness as something that initiates chains.
If we otherwise consider freewill to be merely a feedback loop into a causal chain then this can not be an initiator of the chain but merely one influence (even if a significant one) and already part of the chain. And as previously stated, all links in the chain are either random or behave according to the nature of the universe.
I.e. Our consciousness can not, therefore, be an initiator of actions.
So here we have consciousness not able to be the initiator, and yet we perceive ourself to be the initiator.
The rational conclusion (given the assumptions) is that the perception or ours consciousness being the initiator is just that: a perception.

This is rather summarised; for more detail you can scour the rest of this thread where it has undoubtedly been mentioned previously.

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?

It takes time to make a complex decision, sure. And longer than an instinctual action. Noone is disputing that. But the issue is whether it takes longer whether freewill is illusory or not. You would need to show that freewill being illusory or not affects the length of time to make a decision. Can you do that?
Given that our conscious and unconscious brain would work the same way whether it is illusory or not, I'll go out on a limb and say that you can't support your unwarranted assumption.

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.

I'm not claiming otherwise. It shows your lack of comprehension of the issue that you are equating instinctual / non-instinctual with freewill being illusory or not.
You have singularly failed to understand that whether freewill is illusory or not, we act and perceive ourselves to act in exactly the same way. Freewill being illusory does not mean that everything is instinctual - as instinct/non-instinct is a matter of conscious/subconscious.
The same amount of processing would be required whether freewill is illusory or not, and thus the time taken for a decision would be the same.

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?

Wow. You're losing the plot, MR.
Given your inability to comprehend what is being written, that you amply demonstrate with each subsequent post of yours, and given that your grasp of logic is demonstrably woeful (given your confusion between conclusion and assumption as evidenced further above), you really are the last one here to take seriously with regards critiquing someone else's logic.

Already provided.

Ah, to quote your own post: "Not going to reference old posts. Either state your case or I'm done with you."
You are proving yourself to be nothing but a charlatan, MR. You are clearly using terms you don't fully understand, and you seem to be offended when people point out flaws/gaps in your argument when you clearly don't fully understand your own argument. Yet you demand of others what you are simply not willing to provide yourself.
Hypocrite and charlatan.

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.

How many more times does someone need to explain to you that there is a gaping hole in this?
You jump from "indeterminacy" to "an emergent self-determining state".
You do understand that merely saying that one leads to another does not provide an explanation of how, don't you???
Further, a "self-determining state" would also describe a thermostat, or anything else with even the simplest of feedback loops.
So where is the freewill in those?

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 another one: http://books.google.com/books?id=5E...4BEOgBMB0#v=onepage&q=attractor brain&f=false So stop pretending I haven't shown how it can occur.

And these would happen in a wholly deterministic environment as well. I.e. what you describe is no evidence supporting a genuine freewill. Do you think a genuine freewill (i.e. more than just a perception) can exist within a wholly deterministic environment?
They certainly describe how dynamic systems can appear to exert an influence upon themselves (i.e. feedback loop, albeit of a complex variety), but there is nothing in what you have described here, or anywhere else in your posts, that take you from this to your claim of a genuine freewill.

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?

No, I am not assuming that freewill cannot be a self-determining process. I am saying that the assumptions (as previously given) lead to the conclusion that freewill cannot be a self-determining process. The assumptions exclude the possibility, not directly but through the same arguments (as given) that lead to the conclusion of freewill being illusory.

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, 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.

And as I have said from the outset, if you define freewill as being a matter of how it is perceived, then there is no issue and we can all agree it is "real" according to that definition.
But it is when you try to claim it is more than the perception that we can start looking at whether it is illusory or not because, unlike anything else you have mentioned, what we perceive our freewill to be doing is contrary to the nature of underlying structure. Everything else you mention is compatible. The only way freewill can be is if it is illusory (i.e. it appears to be that which it is not).

 

[Sarkus]

To the best of my knowledge and memory - no.
I've always had some understanding of what I was observing, even if that understanding might have later been replaced by a different understanding.

Okay. I have, although I appreciate that this is mere personal testimony, so take it for what it is.
If you suffer from bad eyesight, and/or blurry vision in the morning (self-induced or otherwise), then it might be more of a common occurence.

How can something be self-evident, other than perhaps in some poetic or metaphorical sense?

Is your own consciousness not self-evident to you?
That we are observing, when we do so, is as self-evident to me.

 

[Quantum Quack]

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

Yes...so often those with a huge emotional investment in the anti-theistic position will avoid mentioning how freewill and self determination are almost synonymous.
Of course freewill doesn't operate void of influences. Of course free will is directly related to the entity wielding it. Of course free will and self determination are directly related to each other.
Also demonstrating the need to obfuscate the discussion by failing to clarify the distinction between freedom, freewill and freedom of choice.

In my opinion these types of approaches are not a necessarily a deliberate attempt to keep the discussion inconclusive but more an inherent subconscious need driven by the paranoia of what concluding freewill as a reality means to their philosophical and emotional state. [People who are of a "controlling" nature seem to or will tend to conclude that they them selves are under the control of an "external actor" whether that be a universe full of cause and effect or an omnipotent and controlling God. Either way 'tis the same thing ]

However the reality of freewill, whilst being used to help explain the historical need for a deity, as demonstrated by humanity through out history where by the "God grants by way of grace freedom for his thoroughly oppressed subjects" doesn't necessarily mean that a "God" (the ultimate oppressor) has reality but could lead to the notion that a God as typically described by most mono-theistic religions may be only a reflective illusion generated by the fears associated with that freedom. [Fear (paranoia) could be considered as the ultimate oppressor]

"Man is born into the universe from a very tiny space [ uterus ] and enters a universe where there appears no boundaries other than the ones he creates or allows, out of fear, for himself" ~qq 2012

 

[Quantum Quack]

@ Sarkus,

Further, a "self-determining state" would also describe a thermostat, or anything else with even the simplest of feedback loops.
So where is the freewill in those?

I hate to state the obvious but living, organic, self animated, self determining lifeforms are NOT machines.
Your approach implies that the human body/mind is somehow to be treated the same as a rock, a dust mote, or a star system.
A thermostat has no freedom to choose when it opens or shuts. If it did it would be freewilled.
However a human sitting next to a lever that controls the valve's opening and closure can decide the temperature he wishes to operate by. Even if this was his sole function in his existence, that being to self determine when the valve should be closed or not or somewhere in between, he is demonstrating freewill IMO.

 

[Quantum Quack]

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 don't 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?

Yes I do and I disagree with the premise: That we can not tell the difference between illusion and reality. This is because we are aware of "nothingness" or zero (vacant space) and perceive from the vantage point of zero. [knowing full well, but due to fear of oblivion refusing to acknowledge, that the universe we inhabit is itself an illusion of something when in reality there is absolutely nothing.
[At any t=0 (duration) point on a time line, the universe is zero dimensional thus non-existent]

This diversion from the topic may be necessary because we are constantly mixing the context in our discussion with the various layers of philosophical thought and ideas.
Philosophy will state that all is subjective for example, that truth is unavailable [ this is premised on a flawed science IMO]. If we bring this layer of thought into the discussion the story is finished before it began unless you wish to debate the first premise of "truth" to begin with.
I don't agree with the current scientific paradigm of how the human brain works nor how our senses function. To me they are purely reflective organs and offer no subjective input until the fears associated with reality are brought into play and filtering [censoring] information begins and is present. [re: Will to power, God complex, Narcissistic Personality]

I take the opposite view, that all is objective and that truth is staring us in the face but our fears offer a distortion by way of ultimately self determined fear based censorship [ sublime reference to the Buddhist school of thought]
I don't agree that the human sensorium is only info acquisition orientated as I believe it to be reflective passive by nature of body yet proactive by nature of mind/will [hence subjective distortion to what we can perceive and what we perceive.]

So I disagree with your main premise that the sensory perception grants us only an illusion of reality [if I read you correctly that is]
I believe you may be referring to the fictional story "The Matrix" and other of similar ilk. [ note : fictional for a reason ]
The amount of paranoid outcry these films generated was tremendous I might add. Psych wards were and still are considerably well patronized in some way, and in part, because of them. [mind control conspiracy theorists]

 

[barcelonic]

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?

Lol MR you've missed it entirely.

Yes we disagree in this debate - I say it's an illusion and you say that it isn't. That is fine. But if you are arguing FOR sensory experience OVER objective info you need to explain why it would seem different from the illusion. If I played a tape for you of last week's horse racing and made you think that you'd won, before telling you what i had done to wipe the smile off your face, then the existence of the tape might well be required to settle the argument but until that tape shows up or is shown to not exist the debate is wide open, like this one. Until that moment comes any point you make would have to explain why your belief, that the racing was current and not historic, is based on something that would be different were it not from last week. Let's say #6 won both race events - you might say that #6 won the race and you betted on #6 therefore the tape is current - but then I would say that #6 also won last week and so whether the tape is current OR historic makes no difference because the result would be exactly the same: #6 would be the winner.

Making a point does not have to be dependant on pre-accepting the illusion. Not at all MR. But every point you make, in order to be valid, MUST accept our position and thus the thread topic. If what we are asking is for points which challenge the notion that free will is an illusion, then the only valid points are ones which take this into account!
And if you CHOOSE to make points based on sensory experience then it MUST be recognised that the 'illusion' we are positing MIRRORS that experience 100% perfectly.

So far neither you nor anyone on your side of the debate has recognised or addressed this FUNDAMENTAL obstacle to your arguments.

Please do, because I KNOW you understand it.

 

[Sarkus]

I hate to state the obvious but living, organic, self animated, self determining lifeforms are NOT machines.

That is your assumption, not mine. I and others consider it merely a matter of complexity. But we also don't make assumptions to fit the answer we want, but rather follow the assumptions through to their conclusion.

Your approach implies that the human body/mind is somehow to be treated the same as a rock, a dust mote, or a star system.
A thermostat has no freedom to choose when it opens or shuts. If it did it would be freewilled.
However a human sitting next to a lever that controls the valve's opening and closure can decide the temperature he wishes to operate by. Even if this was his sole function in his existence, that being to self determine when the valve should be closed or not or somewhere in between, he is demonstrating freewill IMO.

Just a matter of complexity, Not of underlying nature.

 

[Quantum Quack]

That is your assumption, not mine. I and others consider it merely a matter of complexity. But we also don't make assumptions to fit the answer we want, but rather follow the assumptions through to their conclusion.
Just a matter of complexity, Not of underlying nature.

nothing complex about the reality [ note: as distinct from non-existence ] of nothing (zero)
as yet you have failed to include the influential nature of "voidness", vacant space, nothing ness in your argument which means it is far from a complete venture.
Include the reality of zilch and see where you go with it...

Test statement:
"The most influential aspect of reality doesn't exist"

 

[Quantum Quack]

Using a thermostat and a human actor as a comparison may prove beneficial.

the thermostat MUST act according to the known laws applying to it.
where as a human may decide not to act at all, regardless of those laws. This indicates freewill IMO.

 

[Magical Realist]

Making a point does not have to be dependant on pre-accepting the illusion. Not at all MR. But every point you make, in order to be valid, MUST accept our position and thus the thread topic.

That's insane. You're saying I do not have to accept that freewill is an illusion, as indeed I don't. But then you say to make my points I have to agree that freewill is an illusion? No..I will not agree with that, and will continue to require you to back up your claim that freewill isn't real until you can satisfactorily prove it. Noone here has done that yet. They form certain flawed and disjointed premises, draw from them certain flawed conclusions in some bizarre convoluted mimicry of logic, and then say there, freewill is an illusion. Perhaps you could just provide some scientific evidence that deciding and choosing to act is just an illusion. I will be more than happy to compare my scientific studies on decision-making with yours at anytime. Oh lookie! Here's some now:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d...cision-making-and-planning-is-uniquely-human/

Note in the above study the brain area responsible for decision-making becomes damaged in the case of OCD and drug addiction, leading to a loss of freewill. Obviously freewill is not an illusion then if damaging the area of the brain allowing it takes it away.

http://www.livescience.com/22570-decisions-control-frontal-lobe.html

 

[cluelusshusbund]

"the brain area responsible for decision-making becomes damaged in the case of OCD and drug addiction, leading to a loss of freewill. Obviously freewill is not an illusion then if damaging the area of the brain allowing it takes it away.

Prolly most areas of the brain--if damaged woud affect our behavior... so it sounds like at the very minimum to have free will that we woud need brains in perfect workin order... an hell... my brain is in beter workin order than any body elses i know of but even it ant perfect (im a bit germ-a-phobic)... an when other factors are figured in such as the genes we didnt choose... or the enviroment we was raized in that we didnt choose... what choices have we ever made that wasnt influenced by thangs not of our choosin.???

 

[wynn]

Is your own consciousness not self-evident to you?
That we are observing, when we do so, is as self-evident to me.

As long as I use terms I have learned from other people, nothing can be self-evident.

 

[Sarkus]

nothing complex about the reality [ note: as distinct from non-existence ] of nothing (zero)

It is possibly only zero in summation, but the component parts (ourselves included) are far from simple.

as yet you have failed to include the influential nature of "voidness", vacant space, nothing ness in your argument which means it is far from a complete venture.
Include the reality of zilch and see where you go with it...

Test statement:
"The most influential aspect of reality doesn't exist"

I see nothing here that is not inherently included within the universe obeying its laws, and doing so on a probabilistically determined basis.

If you are referring to absolute "voidness" - you'll need to define it specifically: do you mean the vacuum of intergalactic space, or the complete and utter absence of nothing? Or something else?
If you mean the former, such a vacuum is merely the absence of matter (and even intergalactic space has matter).
If you mean the latter, it is an unrealistic concept - i.e. it does not exist.

But as said, what is it you think there is about "voidness" that is not encapsulated by the universe obeying its laws etc?

 

[Sarkus]

Using a thermostat and a human actor as a comparison may prove beneficial.

the thermostat MUST act according to the known laws applying to it.
where as a human may decide not to act at all, regardless of those laws. This indicates freewill IMO.

So you think a human is able to defy the laws of the universe?

Also, until you know how a human "decides", and whether this choice is as free as you think, then you are doing nothing but defining freewill as the conscious perception.
Noone disputes that such a freewill exists (as defined). The issue is whether the perception (consciousness as initiator) matches reality.

 

[Sarkus]

That's insane. You're saying I do not have to accept that freewill is an illusion, as indeed I don't. But then you say to make my points I have to agree that freewill is an illusion? No..I will not agree with that, and will continue to require you to back up your claim that freewill isn't real until you can satisfactorily prove it.

No, he's not saying you have to accept that freewill is an illusion.

He's saying that whatever argument you come up with actually supports both arguments, whether you realise it or not.
This is because your argument starts with the conscious perception of what freewill is.
Whether freewill is illusory or not, our conscious perception of what freewill is is exactly the same.
Thus using any argument that starts from that point is simply not going to show freewill to be illusory or not, because the definition is limited solely to our conscious perception.

Therefore to understand whether freewill is actually as perceived or not, one needs to get behind that conscious perception, and ignore (conceptually) how your consciousness perceives freewill. i.e. work from first principles / assumptions.


As for the rest of your post, the examples included, it is nothing but starting from the point of conscious perception of freewill.
I.e. whether freewill is illusory or not, your examples would be result in the same things that they are showing.
Thus the fact that they show what they do means that it is evidence for neither freewill being illusory nor non-illusory.

Understand, yet?

 

[Sarkus]

As long as I use terms I have learned from other people, nothing can be self-evident.

Then according to this logic nothing could ever be self-evident to anyone... yet someone, somewhere must have been able to learn without using terms from other people.
And how do you know you are conscious? Can you prove it?

 

[Quantum Quack]

So you think a human is able to defy the laws of the universe?

Please show one law that obliges/forces him to act?

 

[wynn]

Then according to this logic nothing could ever be self-evident to anyone... yet someone, somewhere must have been able to learn without using terms from other people.

These are the main possible scenarios for the arising of knowledge:

1. in a strictly atheistic setting people somehow learn on their own,

2. in a theistic setting, as theisms usually propose, God is the First Being, and as such the one from whom all other beings learn,

3. in a setting where spontaneous knowledge can arise,

4. in a setting where there is gradual evolution and gradual evolution of concepts across the span of many human generations.


But for all practical intents and purposes, one learns from others. We can speculate how it all started, but for all practical intents and purposes, it remains that one learns from others. We simply cannot deny that we have learned language from others.

And how do you know you are conscious? Can you prove it?

I never said that I was conscious or that I wasn't conscious.

 

[Quantum Quack]

@Sarkus,

Therefore to understand whether freewill is actually as perceived or not, one needs to get behind that conscious perception, and ignore (conceptually) how your consciousness perceives freewill. i.e. work from first principles / assumptions.

and you claim freewill is an illusion when you can't by your own words ever conclude such?
However we CAN conclude that cause and effect is an temporal illusion quite easily, no behind the veil of consciousness stuff, just simple logic.
And besides which as I have mentioned we perceive from the vantage point of unconsciousness [zero dimension] so yes IMO, consciousness is able to be realized as self evident as does self determination.

Are you conscious of the center of your brain?
nope! case closed..!