The illusion of free will

[NMSquirrel]

The "being petty" was referring to Quantum Quack's last post.
Not your initial comment, which was duly noted and clarification put forth.
To have him subsequently pick out a single line rather than read the explanation as a whole I consider to be petty.
And rather pointless on his part.
I accept that of you, and your posts highlighting the matter were fairly worded.
However I find Quantum Quack's subsequent posts on the matter to have ulterior motives.
Such as a desire to score points.
Although he will undoubtedly plead innocence.

this is where we check our emotional investment in the topic.
some ppl are good at getting others to speak from an emotional position rather than a logical position.
others simply default to the emotional position regardless of posted intent.(my attitude; when ppl feel they are being told they are 'wrong', they tend to get emotional in their arguments)

 

[NMSquirrel]

headlines:

The long running [over 100 years with no head way made] debate on the nature of freewill
suddenly takes a massive turn with the posts offered at sciforums.com by NMSquirrel!...​

lol

and clueless..it would be more accurate to say that you have the answer and you aint tellin..

 

[iceaura]

So we agree that free will does not come from random events... an that cause an effect occurs in the brain... but you simply label the cause an effect that occurs in the brain as free will.

This confuses substrate with pattern, and elevates "cause and effect" far above its proper level as a human approximation and shorthand trick for handling certain aspects of the world. Cause/effect is no more "real" than than the other modeling and heuristic and approximation techniques of analysis that may be adopted or discarded by the analytical mind as it sees fit - no more an ineradicable aspect of reality (and we have good reason to think less) than "probability" or "will".

Meanwhile, the "cause and effect" involved in choosing between consciously described alternatives is an interaction of ideas and memories and other mental events - patterns of patterns of neural firings, dynamically stabilized over time, "causing" each other as waves and whirlpools much more simply cause each other. These patterns exist as real entities in the real world - they are not supernatural - but they are not material in any ordinary sense: they have no particular inertial mass, say. They are certainly not "caused" by neurons or any of the other material constituents of the brain. The brain is their substrate. Substrates do not cause patterns. So when "I" (a congery of some of these patterns) note certain repeated and repeatable properties or aspects of some of these pattern interactions, and label it freedom of will, in what sense is that labeling an illusion?

Is there in reality no difference between the "will" and "decision" properties of a normal person's mental patterns, and those properties of a drug addict's?

It's easy to see how cause and effect is an illusion - our useful approximation for sequences of such high probability that we can deal with them as single events in some suitable immediate contexts is nevertheless clearly not the reality described by our more careful approaches - but freedom of the will (and its crippling or reduction or loss) is more directly experienced.

 

[Quantum Quack]

lol

and clueless..it would be more accurate to say that you have the answer and you aint tellin..

lol/lol

 

[Sarkus]

hmm... well maybe I am wrong... how big do ya reckon it is? You know, the center of mass point? [cog point]

It is not a physical point. It is an abstraction. It has no mass, no dimensions because it is an abstraction. A concept. You are, once again, committing the same fallacies that you have done now for countless posts.
It is pointless discussing with you as you simply refuse to acknowledge or adequately counter the otherwise legitimate criticisms of your position. You just repeat the same notion, complete with the same flaws, seemingly ad nauseam.

Q: This is my position, and here's an example to explain.
Other: But the flaw in that example is X.
Q: Okay, so try this example.
Other: Okay, but that example contains the same flaw X.
Q: Okay, let's try this other example that is identical in principle to the previous one.

Pointless.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Originally Posted by Baldeee View Post
The "being petty" was referring to Quantum Quack's last post.
Not your initial comment, which was duly noted and clarification put forth.
To have him subsequently pick out a single line rather than read the explanation as a whole I consider to be petty.
And rather pointless on his part.
I accept that of you, and your posts highlighting the matter were fairly worded.
However I find Quantum Quack's subsequent posts on the matter to have ulterior motives.
Such as a desire to score points.
Although he will undoubtedly plead innocence.

this is where we check our emotional investment in the topic.
some ppl are good at getting others to speak from an emotional position rather than a logical position.
others simply default to the emotional position regardless of posted intent.(my attitude; when ppl feel they are being told they are 'wrong', they tend to get emotional in their arguments)

It is also demonstrative of the pervasive nature of paranoia. Not clinical paranoia but general societal paranoia.
Mistakes of interpretation are more frequent the more "fear" is involved especially if it involved issues of self esteem.
Baldeee has complained that I have deliberately been "petty" in ignoring an explanation and pursuing a secret agenda of point scoring.
1] He is fully entitled to complain whether rightly or wrongly.
2] The explanation had not been posted prior to my criticism which was in support of NMSquirrel's earlier preceding post.
3] the criticism has not been adequately dealt with and still stands waiting for some sort of requital.
4] Baldeee then accuses me of a conspiracy, that is working to a ulterior motive of simply wishing to score points.
5] He has failed to apologize for his false accusations and also clarify his use of "changing the premises to suit the conclusion (using his word ==>) "required" the key word is "required" which is highly suggestive of fudging the cause to suit the goal.

To me this verbal altercation with Baldeee and Sarkus is not about the debate of freewill but about paranoia and how it effects a persons capacity to have insight into his actions/choices and take responsibility for the resultant impacts of those choices and decisions.

I guess I just have to accept that I am a really scarey sort of guy...and have an innate ability to threaten the comfort zone of most people.

 

[Sarkus]

you don't seem to grasp the fact that it is irrelevant as to how a decision is reached. The decision is reached by the self making it and that is all that matters.
The causal chain stops with us and then it is up to the self determiner to make [create] what he wishes of it. [aka freewill]

:bugeye:
1. If the matter is irrelevant to how a decision is reached, how does it have any bearing on what freewill is, as you continually claim?
2. If you claim that the causal chain stops with us, you are merely begging the question of what self-determination is. Why stop at us? Why not at the preceding cause? Or the cause before that?
3. There is no explanation in here as to how freewill arises. Again, you jump from claim to conclusion.

Whether or not a person takes advantage of their freedom to choose is also irrelevant. The freedom of a blank form field for example, is there whether you wish to make use of that freedom or not. We humans a quite happy about choosing our oppressions - causes [eg. rules of logic, math, science language, legal, domestic relationships, mother inlaws etc] for without oppression, self-restraint, self-control, we would be totally insane.

Again, no explanation within this whatsoever as to how freewill is anything other than an appearance.

 

[Quantum Quack]

re: center of gravity
It is not a physical point.

true!

It is an abstraction.

false! It actually exists in very significant ways with very significant effects.. It can not be considered to be a cause however it certainly has great effects.

It has no mass, no dimensions because it is an abstraction.

False!
see above.. It is not merely an abstraction as it exists and can be proven to exist every time you walk , run or play... blah!
Further, a gymnast, for example, has to "project" his center of gravity correctly to perform his sport.

A concept. You are, once again, committing the same fallacies that you have done now for countless posts.
It is pointless discussing with you as you simply refuse to acknowledge or adequately counter the otherwise legitimate criticisms of your position. You just repeat the same notion, complete with the same flaws, seemingly ad nauseam.

again you launch an attack to cover up your own ineptitude.
admit it... I bet you can't. That the center of gravity is a zero dimensional point that is probably one of the most pervasive and substantial phenomena this universe has.
Have I proved the existence of nothing?... no because I don't have to, the universe does it extremely well, all by itself!

Q: This is my position, and here's an example to explain.
Other: But the flaw in that example is X.
Q: Okay, so try this example.
Other: Okay, but that example contains the same flaw X.
Q: Okay, let's try this other example that is identical in principle to the previous one.

Pointless.

Maybe. take a breath and try again ... rephrase and possibly demonstrate responsibility for your post along the way somehow...

 

[Quantum Quack]

1. If the matter is irrelevant to how a decision is reached, how does it have any bearing on what freewill is, as you continually claim?

ok...go on..

2. If you claim that the causal chain stops with us, you are merely begging the question of what self-determination is. Why stop at us? Why not at the preceding cause? Or the cause before that?

because I am claiming that we are the ultimate cause of our own existential universe. We are ultimately the determiner of that universe.

as the future universe we create does not exist until it is created. [collectively and individually]
We can work collectively in creating a future and have order, self imposed oppression or we can go it alone, throw off the collective oppression and end up in a "padded cell"...

Why stop at us? Why not at the preceding cause? Or the cause before that?

What on Earth are you suggesting with this? There is only "now" to deal with and even the reality of "Now" is open to debate.

by way of explaining a little:
opinion:
we have two extremes:
1] total oppression [ free will is an illusion - total order ] and
2] absolute freewill [ no oppressive causes and Effects allowed- chaos - insanity ]

It is the balancing act between oppressions [ ie. Gov. regulation, ethics and morality etc ] and freedom that generates our current state of societal and individual mental health.
It is our free choice to decide which of the two extremes we trend towards.

 

[Quantum Quack]

A fundamental conflict I have with current scientific/philosophical opinion could be stated as follows:
Statement:
"The universe was never created [ past tense ] but is always in a state of perpetual creation [ present tense ]"

In theosophical terms this means that God did not create the universe. [past tense] but is always creating it in the eternal present moment. (A moment, 14 billion years ago was also a present moment]
Freewill enables us collectively to assist in the creative process... one that the universe as a holistic entity [call it God if you are of religious persuasion] is eternally evolving.
Therefore from our own existential perspective we are responsible for creating our own destiny, our own future, subject to the oppression provided by a universe and other humans collectively seeking order.

 

[Sarkus]

false! It actually exists in very significant ways with very significant effects.. It can not be considered to be a cause however it certainly has great effects.

It is a property. It exists the same way that breadth or width can be said to exist... as an abstraction, a concept. There is nothing that exists as those properties separate from the items they are contingent upon. What exists are the atoms and their bonding. The COG is merely a term for the point at which the gravitational forces either side balance. It has no physical existence. It is an abstraction. Gravity acts on the individual atoms.
Are concepts and abstractions capable of being significant, of being causes? As patterns of thoughts, yes. But that is what they are, patterns of thought, abstractions, not real things in and of themselves.

False!
see above.. It is not merely an abstraction as it exists and can be proven to exist every time you walk , run or play... blah!
Further, a gymnast, for example, has to "project" his center of gravity correctly to perform his sport.

It exists as an abstraction and a concept. It exists the same way as the "middle" can be said to exist: as a concept, an abstraction. Such terms are what that we use for convenience as a descriptor of specific concepts. They have no independent reality.
That you think otherwise I find truly shocking.

again you launch an attack to cover up your own ineptitude.

No, I merely expose the ridiculous flaws in your own position, and all you do is repeat, rinse, repeat, rinse.

admit it... I bet you can't. That the center of gravity is a zero dimensional point that is probably one of the most pervasive and substantial phenomena this universe has.

It is a concept describing a property of a tangible system. It does not exist as anything other than that.

Have I proved the existence of nothing?... no because I don't have to, the universe does it extremely well, all by itself!

Simple question begging on your part. Nothing else.

 

[Quantum Quack]

It is a property. It exists the same way that breadth or width can be said to exist... as an abstraction, a concept. There is nothing that exists as those properties separate from the items they are contingent upon. What exists are the atoms and their bonding. The COG is merely a term for the point at which the gravitational forces either side balance. It has no physical existence. It is an abstraction. Gravity acts on the individual atoms.
Are concepts and abstractions capable of being significant, of being causes? As patterns of thoughts, yes. But that is what they are, patterns of thought, abstractions, not real things in and of themselves.
It exists as an abstraction and a concept. It exists the same way as the "middle" can be said to exist: as a concept, an abstraction. Such terms are what that we use for convenience as a descriptor of specific concepts. They have no independent reality.
That you think otherwise I find truly shocking.
No, I merely expose the ridiculous flaws in your own position, and all you do is repeat, rinse, repeat, rinse.
It is a concept describing a property of a tangible system. It does not exist as anything other than that.
Simple question begging on your part. Nothing else.

'tis funny really that the notion of a real and tangible yet immaterial zero point is soooo shocking.
The center of attraction is the COG yes?
Everything is attracted to a zero point by way of gravity and you consider that to be mere abstraction?
Now I find that kinda shocking...

 

[Sarkus]

because I am claiming that we are the ultimate cause of our own existential universe. We are ultimately the determiner of that universe.

Indeed you are claiming. That is all you are doing. There is nothing but your confidence in your claims to support anything you say.

as the future universe we create does not exist until it is created. [collectively and individually]
We can work collectively in creating a future and have order, self imposed oppression or we can go it alone, throw off the collective oppression and end up in a "padded cell"...

Nothing in here by way of explanation; just more unsupported, unsubstantiated waffling.

What on Earth are you suggesting with this? There is only "now" to deal with and even the reality of "Now" is open to debate.

You claimed: "The causal chain stops with us and then it is up to the self determiner to make [create] what he wishes of it. [aka freewill]"
Why does it stop with us? Why not the cause leading up to "us", or the one before that?
And again, nothing in what you say other than unsupported claims and question begging.

by way of explaining a little:
opinion:
we have two extremes:
1] total oppression [ free will is an illusion - total order ] and
2] absolute freewill [ no oppressive causes and Effects allowed- chaos - insanity ]

It is the balancing act between oppressions [ ie. Gov. regulation, ethics and morality etc ] and freedom that generates our current state of societal and individual mental health.
It is our free choice to decide which of the two extremes we trend towards.

Unsubstantiated waffle, with no explanation or anything other than clarification (or at least so you think) of your claims. Couple this with further question begging.

All you have demonstrated here, QQ, is that you seem to have an endless ability to churn out waffle with no support for any of your claims that is not grossly flawed (and by way of example, just read any of your previous posts where I - and others - have subsequently pointed such flaws out to you, only for them to fall on deaf ears), and that you are unable/unwilling to explain how a decision is actually made (other than some question begging explanation of "self determination") such that freewill is anything other than merely an appearance.
Will it be too much to hope for anything else in the future from you? A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Indeed you are claiming. That is all you are doing. There is nothing but your confidence in your claims to support anything you say.
Nothing in here by way of explanation; just more unsupported, unsubstantiated waffling.
You claimed: "The causal chain stops with us and then it is up to the self determiner to make [create] what he wishes of it. [aka freewill]"
Why does it stop with us? Why not the cause leading up to "us", or the one before that?
And again, nothing in what you say other than unsupported claims and question begging.
Unsubstantiated waffle, with no explanation or anything other than clarification (or at least so you think) of your claims. Couple this with further question begging.

All you have demonstrated here, QQ, is that you seem to have an endless ability to churn out waffle with no support for any of your claims that is not grossly flawed (and by way of example, just read any of your previous posts where I - and others - have subsequently pointed such flaws out to you, only for them to fall on deaf ears), and that you are unable/unwilling to explain how a decision is actually made (other than some question begging explanation of "self determination") such that freewill is anything other than merely an appearance.
Will it be too much to hope for anything else in the future from you? A simple yes or no will suffice.

hey it's not my fault you consider the universal constant of gravity to be an abstraction? eh?

Why does it stop with us? Why not the cause leading up to "us", or the one before that?

as I explained there is no before , there is no after there is only the present moment and that is even debatable...
Your complaint lodged against my explanations are no more than verbal waffle in them selves . You only ask for further explanations that you can not or chose not to comprehend any way.

The COG is a zero point that happens to be the center of attraction... it is real and tangible in it's effects yet has no material substance..
I have shown that "nothing" indeed exists by it's effect on substance but it in itself is not of substance...

...yes or no?

 

[Sarkus]

hey it's not my fault you consider the universal constant of gravity to be an abstraction? eh?

I don't. I have never said that, and there is nothing in my posts that should give any remotely intelligent person cause to think so, at least if they are capable of understanding the difference between the phrases "universal constant of gravity" and the "Centre of Gravity". But I no longer find it surprising that you make such stuff up.

as I explained there is no before , there is no after there is only the present moment and that is even debatable...
Your complaint lodged against my explanations are no more than verbal waffle in them selves . You only ask for further explanations that you can not or chose not to comprehend any way.

If there were any explanations to comprehend, that would be a start.

The COG is a zero point that happens to be the center of attraction... it is real and tangible in it's effects yet has no material substance..
I have shown that "nothing" indeed exists by it's effect on substance but it in itself is not of substance...

...yes or no?

No. And I think that these last few sentences of yous adequately highlights your flawed thinking to anyone else that cares to take it up with you.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I don't. I have never said that, and there is nothing in my posts that should give any remotely intelligent person cause to think so, at least if they are capable of understanding the difference between the phrases "universal constant of gravity" and the "Centre of Gravity". But I no longer find it surprising that you make such stuff up.
If there were any explanations to comprehend, that would be a start.
No. And I think that these last few sentences of yous adequately highlights your flawed thinking to anyone else that cares to take it up with you.

well to where does gravity take you in free fall, but towards the center for gravity?
But alas according to you we are all falling towards an abstraction...
hee hee the center of attraction in a black hole is an abstraction? eh?
I fail to see why that is so hard to grasp? What is so scarey about it that you can not argue in a coherent fashion and can only throw denial at it?


The problem maybe that the logic is rock solid and there is no room to be other wise. It is axiomatic and fundamental. [therefore terribly oppressive]
So instead of agreeing or even acknowledging the possibility you throw nonsensical complaints against it.

What's up Sarkus?
Tell you what... I'll state: "I am totally wrong and the logic is not rock sold and it is all lies and self deception. Yes, you are right freewill is a mere perception, an illusion. I was a fool to think otherwise, sorry for disturbing you kind folk.. and bye bye... see ya later...
then go sit on my empty chair and write notes to myself on blank paper thinking..as there is "nothing" preventing the conclusion from arising, "What a waste of fri**in' time and effort that was..."
Does that help?
Does it change anything?

nope!

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Freewill enables us collectively to assist in the creative process... one that the universe as a holistic entity [call it God if you are of religious persuasion] is eternally evolving.
Therefore from our own existential perspective we are responsible for creating our own destiny, our own future, subject to the oppression provided by a universe and other humans collectively seeking order.

This thred is about best evidence ether for or aganst free will... so... say you'r beliefs are corect... what is the process in you'r belief scenario that gives rise to will bein free... or is ther no explination other than "free will simply exists."???

 

[Quantum Quack]

This thred is about best evidence ether for or aganst free will... so... say you'r beliefs are corect... what is the process in you'r belief scenario that gives rise to will bein free... or is ther no explination other than "free will simply exists."???

well show me evidence that inner causality determines [ not just influences] one decision and let 's start from there...

note the distinction please between "determines" and "influences"

then possibly inform me how if the self is the self, regardless of what self is, is making a determination by self, how does that contravene the notion of self determination.
As to my beliefs I have been expressing the logic for many pages only to hit the Sarkus wall on every occasion. I don't see how discussing the logic of how the freewill is achieved because we create from nothing "something" as we determine, is going to be of any use here.

 

[Baldeee]

It is also demonstrative of the pervasive nature of paranoia. Not clinical paranoia but general societal paranoia.
Mistakes of interpretation are more frequent the more "fear" is involved especially if it involved issues of self esteem.

Is that how you excuse all your mistakes?
Each to their own, I guess.

2] The explanation had not been posted prior to my criticism which was in support of NMSquirrel's earlier preceding post.

If it had not been posted, how were you able to quote and criticise the line from it, for which I consider you petty?
That you required further explanation I can, as said, only apologise that you couldn't grasp it the first time.

3] the criticism has not been adequately dealt with and still stands waiting for some sort of requital.

im not going to bang my head against your inability or unwillingness to comprehend simple language.

4] Baldeee then accuses me of a conspiracy, that is working to a ulterior motive of simply wishing to score points.
5] He has failed to apologize for his false accusations and also clarify his use of "changing the premises to suit the conclusion (using his word ==>) "required" the key word is "required" which is highly suggestive of fudging the cause to suit the goal.

There is no apology needed as the accusation stands.
It is also not a conspiracy as it would be all your own doing.
The clarification you sought has been given.
Your continued misunderstanding is of no further concern to me.
Anything else?

I guess I just have to accept that I am a really scarey sort of guy...and have an innate ability to threaten the comfort zone of most people.

Mentally challenged people I worked with in the past also tended to have that effect on me.
It is a frustration borne of them not being able to understand simple concepts.
Of equivocating concepts and abstractions with the subject of that abstraction.
Of paying no attention when their simple fallacies are pointed out such that they repeat them again and again.
Of paying no attention when they fail again and again to do what has been requested of them.


So unless you have anything further to offer on the subject of freewill, I think our dialogue is concluded.

 

[Baldeee]

This thred is about best evidence ether for or aganst free will... so... say you'r beliefs are corect... what is the process in you'r belief scenario that gives rise to will bein free... or is ther no explination other than "free will simply exists."???

Has anyone yet who advocates a genuine freewill explained how it can arise?
Some have made claims (spurious or otherwise) of what might be required / necessary for it to exist as genuine.
But then they jump from the claim (plus example, flawed or otherwise) of that necessary thing existing to "therefore freewill is genuine".
Are they not able to see that this is flawed logic (affirming the consequent)?