The illusion of free will

[Trooper]

Creeping determinism; genes, drives, and circumstance.

Are we disavowing choice with the blessing of science? Is that it? Can we prove that we had to become what we are? If so, does this mean that we will continue to be what we have been? Can we change, or create more options, thereby increasing the freedom of choice?

 

[river]

Creeping determinism; genes, drives, and circumstance.

Are we disavowing choice with the blessing of science? Is that it?

It could and seems that we are doing just that

To bad really because to my mind , free-will began , at least the seed of free-will began with primative Humans developing a brain and vocal chords

Hence words or descriptions of the enviroment , which lead to coordinated hunting

Can we prove that we had to become what we are?

We could look back to ancient history

If so, does this mean that we will continue to be what we have been?

NO , as they say , learn from the past , so you don't repeat your mistakes

Can we change, or create more options, thereby increasing the freedom of choice?

Sure

By taking a less sacred stance of those who have gone before , in all aspects of knowledge

[/QUOTE]

 

[NMSquirrel]

and that you are unable/unwilling to explain how a decision is actually made

Sarkus, you really need to tone down your posts, it reaks of pretentiousness..(you are just pretending to be something your not)(final authority)

and.. hmm.. how do I make my decisions?...

shoot..i can go on for quite some time about the logistics and logic of who/what/where/when/how/etc of how I make my decisions, but in the end, I make them bases on how I feel about the outcome of the decision, if the decision requires me to be in a place or situations I do not want to be in then that outcome will not happen, but I can endure some temporary discomfort if I know the future effects result in me being in a place/situation that I want to be in.

How do I gauge the outcome of a decision?
Information from friends, family, colleagues, teachers, media, etc (any of which is susceptible to being wrong)
Experience; have I been there, done that? (how many times do I get burnt, before I learn to 'not touch'?)
How would I feel after the decision? (means: unknown exp can = unknown feeling, which increases fear factor, fear increases exponentially with increasing quantity of unknowns(goto internet to reduce unknowns))
What do I believe would be the best solution to the decision?

and yes belief comes into it because at some point, one must believe the source(s) giving you the info to base your decisions on is correct, and to believe that things(circumstances,info,ppl) will be consistent enough so that the decision will have the outcome expected.

Free will?
Will things ever be consistent enough for a decision to have the same results every time it Is made?
Or not free will?

 

[river]

Free-will is really about the gathering of knowledge

The more we have , the freer our will is

 

[Sarkus]

Sarkus, you really need to tone down your posts, it reaks of pretentiousness..(you are just pretending to be something your not)(final authority)?

I pretend nothing, and certainly not the final authority. All I am doing is asking QQ, after pages and pages of his utter drivel, to support his position with anything other than a claim, and to actually provide what he has so far patently failed to do: explanation of how he gets from his claims to the conclusion of a genuine freewill.
If you see that as being pretentious rather than just a desire for something sensible from him, that is your view, and nothing I do will change it.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Free-will is really about the gathering of knowledge

The more we have , the freer our will is

While I understand what you're saying, do you understand what he's saying? It's worth the watch, it really is.

http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice

 

[river]

While I understand what you're saying, do you understand what he's saying? It's worth the watch, it really is.

http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice

Watched it , very good and true

However this is of a business , consumer paradox of knowledge

Which then helps me define what I mean

What I mean then by knowledge is what we know and don't know in the fields of science based knowledge

For example

In the Human Science threads I talk about Ancient Giants of America , read up on it

So free-will here is based on knowledge that is there , but we are not aware of

And since we are not aware of this particular knowledge , we come to conclusions that restrict our understanding of the reality of what has happened , in history , as opposed to what we have all ways been taught

Thats my point

 

[Magical Realist]

Has anyone yet who advocates a genuine freewill explained how it can arise?

I don't know if that is all that necessary. I mean we believe in things like consciousness and reasoning without explaining how they arise. What it really all comes down to is can you live a sane and rational life NOT believing the hundreds of decisions we make everyday have no causal effect upon our actions. Can anyone really go around claiming all their actions are the results of mysterious unknown causes in the brain instead of their own reasoned choice? No..And the reason for it is simple. Because we have a direct intuitive experience of our own choices causing our own actions and nothing else. We see it demonstrated constantly. I choose to raise my arm and my arm raises. I choose to watch something and do so. We are constantly given proof of the causal efficacy of our own decisions on our own actions. Thus the burden of proof lies precisely where it's always been: with those claiming something else besides conscious choice is causing our actions. What is this other cause? What survival advantage would there be in only going thru a time-consuming ruse of choice before we act? And how is it that the real cause of our action so perfectly mimics our power to choose that it seems nothing more than that?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Is that how you excuse all your mistakes?
Each to their own, I guess.
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.
im not going to bang my head against your inability or unwillingness to comprehend simple language.
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?
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.

*sigh...
You still wish to defend this incredible statement you made in post#517
where you stated quite clearly:

It may be that no definition will get to the conclusion required.

look, it is that clear:

It may be that no definition will get to the conclusion required.

and you accuse me of being petty?

as to the rest of your diatribe of paranoid reactions see post #521

Now you wish to suggest and imply mental dysfunction as a way of seeking to discredit any one who has read this statement of yours:

It may be that no definition will get to the conclusion required.

Even a scientific genius such as Albert Einstein admitted to fudging when he made one...

In theoretical physics, when Einstein originally tried to produce a general theory of relativity, he found that the theory seemed to predict the gravitational collapse of the universe: it seemed that the universe should either be expanding or collapsing, and to produce a model in which the universe was static and stable (which seemed to Einstein at the time to be the "proper" result), he introduced an expansionist variable (called the Cosmological Constant), whose sole purpose was to cancel out the cumulative effects of gravitation. He later called this, "the biggest blunder of my life."[2] ~wiki : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fudge_factor

 

[Quantum Quack]

I pretend nothing, and certainly not the final authority. All I am doing is asking QQ, after pages and pages of his utter drivel, to support his position with anything other than a claim, and to actually provide what he has so far patently failed to do: explanation of how he gets from his claims to the conclusion of a genuine freewill.
If you see that as being pretentious rather than just a desire for something sensible from him, that is your view, and nothing I do will change it.

but why do you want me to explain that which you can not comprehend?
Why?

 

[Quantum Quack]

How do I gauge the outcome of a decision?
Information from friends, family, colleagues, teachers, media, etc (any of which is susceptible to being wrong)
Experience; have I been there, done that? (how many times do I get burnt, before I learn to 'not touch'?)
How would I feel after the decision? (means: unknown exp can = unknown feeling, which increases fear factor, fear increases exponentially with increasing quantity of unknowns(goto internet to reduce unknowns))
What do I believe would be the best solution to the decision?

and yes belief comes into it because at some point, one must believe the source(s) giving you the info to base your decisions on is correct, and to believe that things(circumstances,info,ppl) will be consistent enough so that the decision will have the outcome expected.

but is it you that is making the decision or someone/something else?
If it is you then the "self" in "self determination" could be said to be adequately evidenced yes?
Cogito ergo sum "I think therefore I am"

 

[Quantum Quack]

The claim made by this thread is that Freewill is an illusion. It is up to the claimant to prove his case. That self determination is a perceptional myth.
So far I have seen no unambiguous evidence that our choices are determined by anything else other than what is considered as "self" [regardless of how self derives a determination, it is a determination by self]
Is the determination by self and illusion? If not then what ramifications does this have on the thread topic that free will is an allusion?

 

[Motor Daddy]

Even a scientific genius such as Albert Einstein admitted to fudging when he made one...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fudge_factor

A fudge factor is an ad hoc quantity introduced into a calculation, formula or model in order to make it fit observations or expectations. Examples include Einstein's Cosmological Constant, dark energy, dark matter and inflation.

Einstein's name is all over that link. I think he was actually the first one that conceived of the idea of "fudge factor", no? Maybe we should change the name to "The Einstein Factor."

 

[Quantum Quack]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fudge_factor



Einstein's name is all over that link. I think he was actually the first one that conceived of the idea of "fudge factor", no? Maybe we should change the name to "The Einstein Factor."

hee hee... the irony though was that the greatest blunder turned out to be so beneficial...[if I am not mistaken... (still waking up after a dreadful night)]

 

[river]

To the above post , we should explore the " fudge factor " and factors by Einstein

But more importantly is the want to INQUIRE about things , to ask about , to investigate

Perhaps free-will , is really about the WANT to INQUIRE and to question and curiosity and the want to know

And without such qualities of thought

Free-will is non-existent

But since we have these qualities , free-will exists

 

[Quantum Quack]

To the above post , we should explore the " fudge factor " and factors by Einstein

But more importantly is the want to INQUIRE about things , to ask about , to investigate

Perhaps free-will , is really about the WANT to INQUIRE and to question and curiosity and the want to know

And without such qualities of thought

Free-will is non-existent

But since we have these qualities , free-will exists

River I believe you are totally on the mark with the emphasis being on our ability to inquire about anything.
"it is not the questions I have that determine freewill but the questions I am being oppressed from asking"

So asking the question: "What questions am I not able to ask?" immediately opens the window towards a greater self determination.

 

[river]

Originally Posted by river
To the above post , we should explore the " fudge factor " and factors by Einstein

But more importantly is the want to INQUIRE about things , to ask about , to investigate

Perhaps free-will , is really about the WANT to INQUIRE and to question and curiosity and the want to know

And without such qualities of thought

Free-will is non-existent

But since we have these qualities , free-will exists

River I believe you are totally on the mark with the emphasis being on our ability to inquire about anything.
"it is not the questions I have that determine freewill but the questions I am being oppressed from asking"
so asking the question: "What questions am I not able to ask?" immediately opens the window towards a greater self determination.

Terrific thinking

 

[Quantum Quack]

Comic relief:
[video=youtube;stvrWdFijZc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stvrWdFijZc[/video]

And what's his name yells out

"Don't look Ethel, don't look... but ...well... too late... she looked..."

reference to the issue of being able to question freely.
:m:

 

[cluelusshusbund]

"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?

Waves an Whirlpools... an real non-supernatural non-material entities is no explination of how free will arises from cause an effect.!!!

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?

So some people have more free will than others.???

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.

Other than cause an effect... an random events... what else are choices based on.???

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
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."???

"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.

Thanks for you'r honesty