The illusion of free will

[Sarkus]

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.

Sure, and I don't deny it.
But learning is different from being self-evidently observing. I didn't need to learn from others that that was what I was doing.
Also, why would an atheistic setting (your #1 above) preclude options 3 and especially 4?

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

You didn't. I assume you are. So the question remains for you to answer even if just to yourself.

 

[Sarkus]

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

Gravity, electromagnetism, thermodynamics, conservation of energy, of momentum... to name a few.

So you think a human can defy these laws?

 

[Sarkus]

and you claim freewill is an illusion when you can't by your own words ever conclude such?

Are you as incapable as MR of understanding what is written? Where have I said that I can not ever conclude such? I have said precisely that we CAN conclude such... but to do so requires going beyond our perception of freewill, and requires working from first principles/assumptions.

However we CAN conclude that cause and effect is an temporal illusion quite easily, no behind the veil of consciousness stuff, just simple logic.

Please do show this simple logic that would show it to be a temporal illusion.

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.

What does consciousness being self-evident have to do with anything??
Self-determination appears to be, sure.
But unlike consciousness, it also appears to violate the underlying assumptions, unless what we perceive as freewill is just that, a perception, that hides the actual workings.
When things are perceived to exist that do not appear to exist in lower levels of complexity there is no issue in their arising and in us accepting them as perceived except when that perception is contrary to the underlying assumptions. Consciousness would fall in the former camp; freewill, as argued, would be in the latter.

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

So your argument is "You are not aware of the centre of your brain: therefore genuine freewill exists!"
But then you also think humans can violate the laws of physics.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Gravity, electromagnetism, thermodynamics, conservation of energy, of momentum... to name a few.

So you think a human can defy these laws?

he can defy them enough Not to act. Do you have a problem with reading comprehension some times..?

I quite clearly stated:

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.

I can only presume that your get a block every now and then and simply can't read what is posted.
I then asked:

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

read: forces him to decide to act... [just to spell it out for you.. sheesh!]
and we are still waiting...
already quoted in this thread:
"You can lead a horse to water but you can't force it to drink"
or
You can provide the best reasoning and use of logic in the universe but you still can't force people to listen or agree. Question: Why not?

So your argument is "You are not aware of the centre of your brain: therefore genuine freewill exists!"
But then you also think humans can violate the laws of physics.

Nope! I think someone is exercising their freewill by deliberately dodging the issue raised.

 

[Quantum Quack]

@Sarkus
I believe we are aware of our consciousness because we perceive it from a vantage point of unconsciousness. [zero]
Therefore we are aware of our own conscious state. [ "Eureka! I am awake" claimed the man after being in a coma for 20 years. ]
Now what sort of problem are you going to dig up for the above I wonder?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Please do show this simple logic that would show it to be a temporal illusion.

I will write it out one more time rather than refer you to an earlier post or bother digging it up.

At any t=0 on a time line you will note that the duration of that point is zero. So at any t=0 the universe is zero dimensional simply because there is no time available for it to exist.
Therefore the present moment is non-existent.
Why the universe appears to exist is due to the fact that t=o is a part of a continuum of change therefore future to present to past appears but only as a temporal illusion as the future doesn't exist materially nor does the past.
This leaves us with only the present moment (hyper surface of the present) which as I stated is of zero duration. Ex-nihilo explained in two sentences.(minus one key attribute),...[ chuckle]
From nothing comes something but that something is temporal. A figment of the universes collective imagination.

In philosophy, temporality is traditionally the linear progression of past, present, and future. However, some modern-century philosophers have interpreted temporality in ways other than this linear manner. Examples would be McTaggart's The Unreality of Time, Husserl's analysis of internal time consciousness, Martin Heidegger's Being and Time (1927), George Herbert Mead's Philosophy of the Present (1932), and Jacques Derrida's criticisms of Husserl's analysis, as well as Nietzsche's eternal return of the same, though this latter pertains more to historicity, to which temporality gives rise.

In social sciences, temporality is also studied with respect to human's perception of time and the social organization of time.[1] The perception of time undergoes significant change in the three hundred years between the Middle Ages and Modernity.[2]

~wiki

 

[Quantum Quack]

and you claim freewill is an illusion when you can't by your own words ever conclude such?

oopsy! sorry for the confusion... read:

"and you claim freewill is an illusion when you can't by your own ration-al ever conclude such?"
to wit: "to observe freewill or not one must transcend from the perception or reality of it."
and I believe the Buddhist philosophy is about doing just that. By becoming devoid of attachments [ego/identity] the will is liberated from oppression.

 

[barcelonic]

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?

My goodness MR you're failure to understand my last post is astounding me right now. If the horse racing analogy doesn't help you to get there I can't imagine what would.
You DO NOT have to accept that free will is an illusion - but your points DO need to take into account that that is what our position is.

Not one point you make based on sensory perception could possibly prove anything - it is like the man watching last weeks horse race insisting that he is watching the current one simply because #6 won the race!

Hopefully somebody else can explain it to you. I'm done.
Frankly i thought my analogy and subsequent explanation sufficed but apparently there's only so much one can do to explain simple logic. You go on talking about brain lobes and chaos theory if you want but without recognising the problem
anyone who actually responds to your points would be effectively doing so out of courtesy.

In the biggest possible sense, LOL.

 

[wynn]

But learning is different from being self-evidently observing. I didn't need to learn from others that that was what I was doing.

Or by now you just forgot that you did learn it from others.

Also, why would an atheistic setting (your #1 above) preclude options 3 and especially 4?

??
What makes you think it precludes it?

Depending on the particular definition of "God" that we choose to work with, 3 and 4 can be either in a theistic or an atheistic setting.

So the question remains for you to answer even if just to yourself.

No, it doesn't.

 

[Sarkus]

he can defy them enough Not to act. Do you have a problem with reading comprehension some times..?

I quite clearly stated:
I can only presume that your get a block every now and then and simply can't read what is posted.

I read. And I understood. But you do not seem to understand that you can not defy any of those laws. It is not a case of being able to "defy them enough". It is simply a case of NOT BEING ABLE to defy them at all.
That is why we consider them LAWS.
So please give me one example of a defiance of those laws.
Any.
Just one.
Please.

I then asked:

read: forces him to decide to act... [just to spell it out for you.. sheesh!]
and we are still waiting...
already quoted in this thread:
"You can lead a horse to water but you can't force it to drink"
or
You can provide the best reasoning and use of logic in the universe but you still can't force people to listen or agree. Question: Why not?

And I gave a number of laws that force someone to act.
Need me to provide them again?
If one can not defy those laws, they MUST force someone to act in a certain way.

Nope! I think someone is exercising their freewill by deliberately dodging the issue raised.

There is no issue to dodge, just the garbage that you and MR both throw out incessantly.

 

[Sarkus]

I believe we are aware of our consciousness because we perceive it from a vantage point of unconsciousness. [zero]
Therefore we are aware of our own conscious state. [ "Eureka! I am awake" claimed the man after being in a coma for 20 years. ]
Now what sort of problem are you going to dig up for the above I wonder?

If you mean we perceive it as being distinct from the alternative state of unconsciousness, then I agree. So what?
If you mean anything else then you're going to have to explain.

 

[Sarkus]

I will write it out one more time rather than refer you to an earlier post or bother digging it up.

At any t=0 on a time line you will note that the duration of that point is zero. So at any t=0 the universe is zero dimensional simply because there is no time available for it to exist.
Therefore the present moment is non-existent.
Why the universe appears to exist is due to the fact that t=o is a part of a continuum of change therefore future to present to past appears but only as a temporal illusion as the future doesn't exist materially nor does the past.
This leaves us with only the present moment (hyper surface of the present) which as I stated is of zero duration. Ex-nihilo explained in two sentences.(minus one key attribute),...[ chuckle]
From nothing comes something but that something is temporal. A figment of the universes collective imagination.

Sure, time itself may be an illusion, and the language within the phrase "cause and effect" may imply linearity of time. But in essence all it means is that everything is the result of something else, whether it all happens in the same instant or not.
So while an interesting philosophical notion in and of itself, it does not alter the situation with regard freewill.

 

[Sarkus]

oopsy! sorry for the confusion... read:

"and you claim freewill is an illusion when you can't by your own ration-al ever conclude such?"

By my own rationale I have concluded such. It holds. It is internally consistent and does not break down when applied to itself... or if it does you certainly haven't indicated how or where.

to wit: "to observe freewill or not one must transcend from the perception or reality of it."

One must merely take a step back from what we consciously perceive and look at (conceptually) what we are incapable of consciously perceiving.

and I believe the Buddhist philosophy is about doing just that. By becoming devoid of attachments [ego/identity] the will is liberated from oppression.

This may hold, in as much as it relates to what we can perceive. But it can not hold for what we are incapable of perceiving.

 

[Sarkus]

Or by now you just forgot that you did learn it from others.

I assure you that noone had to teach me that I was looking out of my own eyes. It became self-evident.

What makes you think it precludes it?

My mistake, then. I felt the wording you used ("These are the main possible scenarios for the arising of knowledge:") meant that each was to be considered in isolation - each as a separate scenario.
So apologies.

No, it doesn't.

It remains, since it has been asked, even it remains only as a whispering thought in the ether. The only issues are whether you answer it and if so, who to.

 

[Magical Realist]

Are you as incapable as MR of understanding what is written

You'll have to be patient with Sarkus QQ. He gets very frustrated when people question his convoluted baseless logic. Next he'll be ad homing you as too stupid to follow it or else a charlatan and hypocrite like he did me. Perhaps his own brain is causing him to act this way and he just can't help it. That would certainly make freewill an illusion in his case.

 

[Magical Realist]

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.

You're right. I don't assume freewill is an illusion. Therefore its simple demonstration to me IS adequate evidence for its existence. Just like my experience of typing these words is evidence to me I am typing these words. Just like my thinking is evidence that I am thinking. Just like my perception of the world is evidence that I am perceiving. Freewill shows itself to be real, and is self-evident. If you can't grasp that simple fact then that's your problem not mine.

 

[Magical Realist]

You DO NOT have to accept that free will is an illusion - but your points DO need to take into account that that is what our position is.

That would require me to grant some legitimacy to your claim that freewill is an illusion. I don't acknowledge that. That would be accepting your conclusion without hearing your argument. So far no argument offered comes even close to proving freewill is an illusion. So I refuse you the luxury of handwaving away all the evidence that comes from our direct intuitive experience of freewill and decision-making. And for future reference, your analogies are distractive, overcomplicated, and embarrassingly weighted. They should make your point clearer, not more confusing. That's why they don't help your argument.

 

[Sarkus]

He gets very frustrated when people question his convoluted baseless logic.

I get frustrated when people are dishonest, deliberately or otherwise. I also get frustrated when someone tries to argue a point when it is clear that they don't actually understand what they are arguing against, or even some of the terms they themselves use, when instead they merely have to ask for clarification.

Next he'll be ad homing you as too stupid to follow it or else a charlatan and hypocrite like he did me.

And perhaps one day someone will explain to you what an ad hominem argument actually is.

 

[Magical Realist]

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.

No they would not result from the same things if freewill were illusory. If freewill and decision-making and planning were an illusion, then damaging that part of the brain that allows it wouldn't result in unfree behavioral disorders like OCD and ADHD and addiction. How can you really lose freedom if you never really had it to begin with. Unless you're saying that these disorders are only illusions too and not real losses of freedom. Unfortunately medical science is against you on this one.

 

[Sarkus]

That would require me to grant some legitimacy to your claim that freewill is an illusion. I don't acknowledge that. That would be accepting your conclusion without hearing your argument.

You are baffling, MR. Truly. What you say here is nothing short of you going into a debate, putting your fingers in your ears and going "blah blah blah! I am not listening! Blah blah blah!"
If you want to dismiss a person's argument you need to first understand it (note that this does not require you to grant it any legitimacy) and then show how it is flawed.
But instead you dismiss it out of hand and refuse to even acknowledge its detail.

So far no argument offered comes even close to proving freewill is an illusion. So I refuse you the luxury of handwaving away all the evidence that comes from our direct intuitive experience of freewill and decision-making.

And to stop them from providing such you refuse to even comprehend what they have to say.

Both concepts ("freewill is illusory" and "freewill is genuine") are compatible with A leading to B leading to C. At point C you cry "See! Freewill!" and yet the other side says "Ah, but you then need to go to point D and then E, and you'll see that point C is illusory". But you then say "But you haven't shown freewill to be illusory, therefore I'm not going to bother understanding what you have to say beyond point C! Until you can do that, why should I go to point D and then E?"
Or, more precisely: "I refuse you the luxury of handwaving away all the evidence that comes from our direct intuitive experience..."
Which seems to translate to: "I refuse to listen to anything that might show our direct intuitive experience to be illusory".