The illusion of free will

[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."???

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

No.!!!

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)?

Aparently not :shrug: but its interestin to observe... up to a pont :wallbang:

 

[cluelusshusbund]

"we believe in things like consciousness and reasoning without explaining how they arise.

I see no evidence that consciousness an reasoning is anythang other than biological... an in that respect... no more mysterious than the sinse of sight.!!!

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.

The vast majority do beleive in free will... an the rationality an sanity of the world is quite debatable... lol

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?

That sounds like what free will believers do... claim "ther actions are the result of mysterious causes in the brain"... that "somehow" give rise to free will.!!!

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.

I thank its a hoot... the gratest illusion ever... that will is free

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?

I thank that you accept cause an effect... except when applied to free will bein an illusion.!!!

What survival advantage would there be in only going thru a time-consuming ruse of choice before we act?

The ruse is calmin that free will bein an illusion is time-consumin.!!!

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?

Its not perfect in that some people can see the illusion of free will... an yet... its dam near perfcet because even those who realize its an illusion still live ther lives as tho ther will was free... perty cool

 

[Quantum Quack]

I see no evidence that consciousness an reasoning is anythang other than biological... an in that respect... no more mysterious than the sinse of sight.!!!



The vast majority do beleive in free will... an the rationality an sanity of the world is quite debatable... lol



That sounds like what free will believers do... claim "ther actions are the result of mysterious causes in the brain"... that "somehow" give rise to free will.!!!



I thank its a hoot... the gratest illusion ever... that will is free



I thank that you accept cause an effect... except when applied to free will bein an illusion.!!!



The ruse is calmin that free will bein an illusion is time-consumin.!!!



Its not perfect in that some people can see the illusion of free will... an yet... its dam near perfect because even those who realize its an illusion still live ther lives as tho ther will was free... perty cool

think for a bit...I am not saying this is the case ok ...but that it is one possible biological causation for freewill.

say you imagine a circle and the circumference of that circles consists of all the possible causes you can choose from. You, your inner biological person is in the center of that circle and you have to either make a choice or go to sleep and not make a choice.

How does the causes you are choosing from inside your head force the notion that you are not able to make a free choice from all options available including sleep.?

It's all very well to claim as you do that freewill MUST be an illusion but as yet you have not provided any conclusive evidence that it is.
Possibly the inner person, biologically, is only interested in a blind choice and it is only the outer person [biological], that works with the ramifications. Working together they equate to freewill being a reality and not an illusion..

I used the scenario of a man with two buttons to push with out any consideration for what pushing those buttons meant.
He chooses button A, instead of button B, blind to any ramifications.
How is this not demonstrating freewill and self determination free of cause [ goals ]?

Its not perfect in that some people can see the illusion of free will... an yet... its dam near perfect because even those who realize its an illusion still live ther lives as tho ther will was free... perty cool

It is little wonder that people will tend towards what they intuitively know rather than be swayed by potentially flawed science.

 

[Jan Ardena]

cluelusshusbund,

I see no evidence that consciousness an reasoning is anythang other than biological... an in that respect... no more mysterious than the sinse of sight.!!!

I suppose that's one way of looking at it, even though it could be seen as a tad narrow-minded.

The vast majority do beleive in free will... an the rationality an sanity of the world is quite debatable... lol

That's probably due to the majority doing as they choose and not acting like people with no free-will.

That sounds like what free will believers do... claim "ther actions are the result of mysterious causes in the brain"... that "somehow" give rise to free will.!!!

Would they make such a claim if they didn't have a free will?
Also, if we didn't have free will, would there be a need to pretend we do?
Can you imagine if your computer informed you that it has free will. Wouldn't that be some weird shit?

I find it just as weird when a human says they have no free will.

I thank its a hoot... the gratest illusion ever... that will is free

He gave you an adequate explanation as to why he believes we have free will. What is your reasoning for believing we have no free will and it is therefore an illusion?

I thank that you accept cause an effect... except when applied to free will bein an illusion.!!!

It sounds to me that in the case of moving his arms, when, where, and how he feels (within the limitation of his body), he himself is the cause of the said effect. I suppose if he should ever have a stroke, or become paralyzed, not being able to move his arm according to his instruction, then his will to move them on a whim would be lost, hence he cannot freely, will his arms the way he once could. There's a example of free will right there.

Its not perfect in that some people can see the illusion of free will... an yet... its dam near perfcet because even those who realize its an illusion still live ther lives as tho ther will was free... perty cool

Okay, it's become obvious to me that for you, there is no question as to whether or not free will is an illusion. Why is it an illusion?

Sorry if you have covered this already. If that is the case then please point me to the post.

jan.

 

[Baldeee]

*sigh...
You still wish to defend this incredible statement you made in post#517

Yes.
The explanation has been provided.
You continue to take one line out of context.
As if it was intended as part of the scientific method.
It clearly was not.
That was your false assumption.
Due to you being unable to understand it the first time, a further explanation was provided.
You continue to push the matter.
I thus consider you petty.

and you accuse me of being petty?

Yes.

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:

No.
I merely explained the last time I encountered someone as difficult as you.
That you continue to push the point above shows that you are out to score points rather than try to understand what was being said.
You therefore reinforce my original opinion with every post.
Up to you whether you drop it or not.

 

[Baldeee]

Terrific thinking

Not really.
All people are doing is giving ideas of what freewill might be considered.
What no one is doing is showing how that their concept of freewill is anything other than a perception of what is going on.
That is the crux of this thread.
Anyone can talk about what it seems to be at a conscious level.
Of what restrictions, limitations, influences etc there might be on our decisions.
But none of it gets to the heart of the matter.
None of the explanations even try to approach that matter.

Only a few have even tried.
Those that don't are stuck with no means of establishing whether what they consider freewill is illusory or not.
They merely say "it appears so... therefore it is so".

So "terrific thinking"?
No.
It doesn't even start to answer the question.

 

[Baldeee]

No.!!!

Aparently not :shrug: but its interestin to observe... up to a pont :wallbang:

That point is when they are no longer even aware that they have closed themselves off even to the means of addressing the matter.
With some it happened many pages ago.

 

[Baldeee]

He gave you an adequate explanation as to why he believes we have free will. What is your reasoning for believing we have no free will and it is therefore an illusion?

This is part of the problem here.
People are assuming that if freewill is illusory then it doesn't exist.
But if it is illusory it still continues to operate in the the same manner as it does for everyone who thinks it genuine.
It is not a case of saying "there is no freewill".
It is merely understanding what that freewill is.
As another has given as an example, a mirage still exists the same as it always does whether we consider it an illusion or not.
What is illusory is what it is depicting.
Our perception.

It sounds to me that in the case of moving his arms, when, where, and how he feels (within the limitation of his body), he himself is the cause of the said effect. I suppose if he should ever have a stroke, or become paralyzed, not being able to move his arm according to his instruction, then his will to move them on a whim would be lost, hence he cannot freely, will his arms the way he once could. There's a example of free will right there.

There's an example of the appearance of freewill.
We are judging our notion of "freewill" in that example by how it appears to ourself.

Okay, it's become obvious to me that for you, there is no question as to whether or not free will is an illusion. Why is it an illusion?

Sorry if you have covered this already. If that is the case then please point me to the post.

For me it is because the requirement for a genuine freewill is for the self to be the absolute instigator of an action.
If we start with the premise that actions are all caused by other actions, and the outputs of those actions are governed by the laws of the universe, whether deterministically or in deterministically, then for our freewill to be genuine we would require something that does not adhere to the premise.
That we perceive this to be the case leads to the conclusion that it is just a perception.
That we perceive ourself to be the instigator whereas we are actually just the end result of a vastly complex set of interactions.
Determinism or indeterminism does not matter.
What matters is that we can not alter the laws of the universe, and that the result of an interaction - at the micro level - is in accordance with those laws.

Others have said "indeterminism... therefore freewill"
But that don't explain how one leads to the other, only that one is a prerequisite for the other.

And everything most people (I.e. the advocates of a genuine freewill) say starts with one's conscious perception being the arbiter of what freewill is or isn't.
And by doing so they have zero means of establishing whether freewill is illusory or not.
Their definitions of freewill start with the implied notion that it is a perception.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Yes.
The explanation has been provided.
You continue to take one line out of context.
As if it was intended as part of the scientific method.
It clearly was not.
That was your false assumption.
Due to you being unable to understand it the first time, a further explanation was provided.
You continue to push the matter.
I thus consider you petty.
Yes.
No.
I merely explained the last time I encountered someone as difficult as you.
That you continue to push the point above shows that you are out to score points rather than try to understand what was being said.
You therefore reinforce my original opinion with every post.
Up to you whether you drop it or not.

I really don't care whether you consider me to be difficult or not... nor do I care about the opinion of someone who can post such obvious nonsense and then go on to defend the indefensible.
You posted something that reeked of manufacturing the evidence to suit the required result.
You were given an opportunity to back off gracefully when I posted :

Probably unintended but this reeks.. sorry!

but instead you decided of your own freewill to defend the indefensible and attack me instead.
and of course it is up to you whether you wish to drop it or not... but be warned I am up for it if you are...

 

[Quantum Quack]

Not really.
All people are doing is giving ideas of what freewill might be considered.
What no one is doing is showing how that their concept of freewill is anything other than a perception of what is going on.
That is the crux of this thread.

can you prove that reality generally is not an illusion of perception?
no such thing as objective truth, truth is an illusion etc ... philosophy 101

Anyone can talk about what it seems to be at a conscious level.
Of what restrictions, limitations, influences etc there might be on our decisions.
But none of it gets to the heart of the matter.
None of the explanations even try to approach that matter.

Only a few have even tried.
Those that don't are stuck with no means of establishing whether what they consider freewill is illusory or not.
They merely say "it appears so... therefore it is so".

So "terrific thinking"?
No.

you don't even know what you are referring to do you?
oh you mean this:

Originally Posted by Quantum Quack View Post
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

Sour grapes and a soar loser perhaps!

 

[Baldeee]

I really don't care whether you consider me to be difficult or not... nor do I care about the opinion of someone who can post such obvious nonsense and then go on to defend the indefensible.
You posted something that reeked of manufacturing the evidence to suit the required result.
You were given an opportunity to back off gracefully when I posted :

but instead you decided of your own freewill to defend the indefensible.
and of course it is up to you whether you wish to drop it or not... but be warned I am up for it if you are...

So you can't tell the difference between evidence and a working definition?
This is your mistake here.
There is no manufacturing of evidence.
There is an adjustment of the working definitions.
And in adjusting the definitions to one that will allow the conclusion one wants, one reaches an understanding of that concept.
Since this thread is about freewill, and that there is no standard definition of freewill, this is a perfectly legitimate means of establishing what, if any, definitions of freewill can lead to the conclusion that it can be said to be non-illusory.
That you consider this an indefensible position, based on your own misunderstanding, and continue to push the point, speaks volumes about you.

 

[Baldeee]

can you prove that reality generally is not an illusion of perception?
no such thing as objective truth, truth is an illusion etc ... philosophy 101

Most of our perceptions of reality do not require things that run contrary to the laws of the universe.
Our perceptions in most regards are merely adding to those laws.
Our perception of space, of time, of dimensions, are not contrary to the laws.

The notion of freewill requires something (self-instigation) that is contrary to the laws.

you don't even know what you are referring to do you?

Wonderful counter.
Clearly a example of your "terrific thinking".

 

[Quantum Quack]

So you can't tell the difference between evidence and a working definition?
This is your mistake here.

no mistake .. you tried to cover it up after it was made obvious...

There is no manufacturing of evidence.
There is an adjustment of the working definitions.
And in adjusting the definitions to one that will allow the conclusion one wants

eh? Does any one else see a huge problem with this... ?


so what is your definition of freewill that will allow the conclusion you want?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Most of our perceptions of reality do not require things that run contrary to the laws of the universe.

and you reckon you know those laws yes?

Our perceptions in most regards are merely adding to those laws.

what laws are you referring to?

Our perception of space, of time, of dimensions, are not contrary to the laws.

unless they are just that, a manufactured perception that science will tell you is the case. accordingly 'tis all an illusion of perception or didn't you know... we all live in a "matrix" of our own creation...subjectivity vs objectivity.

The notion of freewill requires something (self-instigation) that is contrary to the laws.

what laws are you referring to? and please show evidence to support such a claim.
maybe it's the law that says, "Thou shall not thinketh for thy selfeth?" or "Thy shall not self instigate or self determine" law
Welcome to the hive...

Wonderful counter.

thanks I thought so too...

Clearly a example of your "terrific thinking".

hey we agree!! we agree!

 

[Quantum Quack]

@Baldeee

so what is your definition of freewill that will allow the conclusion you want?

its a bit like this :
We have a basket with 3 oranges in it. [truth by consensus]
However Baldeee wants there to be only 2 oranges sooooooo....he decides arbitrarily to make one of the oranges an illusion.
So now we only have an illusion of a total of three oranges and that "really" there are only two in the basket..so he claims.
He then exclaims: "Nothing wrong with that is there? The conclusion I wanted is achieved . What more could *YOU* want?"

Come on Baldeee surely you can see the problem?

 

[Motor Daddy]

Most of our perceptions of reality do not require things that run contrary to the laws of the universe.
Our perceptions in most regards are merely adding to those laws.
Our perception of space, of time, of dimensions, are not contrary to the laws.

Oh, so some of our perceptions of reality do require things that run contrary to the laws of the universe. Can you name a few of them for me? If in the morning I wake up and the sun is rising in the east, and then in the evening the sun is setting in the west, that means the sun moves around the earth, right? Help me out here man, you're confusing me more and more.

Our perception adds to the laws of physics? How so?

 

[Baldeee]

Oh, so some of our perceptions of reality do require things that run contrary to the laws of the universe. Can you name a few of them for me? If in the morning I wake up and the sun is rising in the east, and then in the evening the sun is setting in the west, that means the sun moves around the earth, right? Help me out here man, you're confusing me more and more.

Our perception adds to the laws of physics? How so?

Our perceptions do not add to the laws themselves but to our understanding of them, especially at the higher levels of complexity.
Atoms do not have the property of hardness, for example, yet we perceive matter to have hardness.
This property is explainable through the laws of the universe.
The "hardness" I would consider to be an emergent property that we perceive and that does not run contrary to the laws of physics.
It is explainable through bonding of atoms etc.
So in this regard I would say our perception has added to the laws of physics.

As for what runs contrary, anything that is perceived to operate in a manner that defies the laws of physics.
I consider freewill to do so because it requires actions to be instigated by ourselves, and to do so in a manner that is not solely the result of the combined causes.
If it is solely the result of the combined cause, then interactions follow the path that the laws of physics set out for them.
If it is not the result of the combined causes then something else must be influencing the outcome that is not part of the cause.
Either way, this seems to go against the laws of physics.
Since our perception is contrary, I deem it illusory.

 

[NMSquirrel]

hehe...I guess for some free will does not exist and for others it does.

case in point..

two ppl get into a discussion and one or the other expresses an unintended/undefined statement that cause misinformation/misunderstanding, some can choose to clear up any misunderstanding and be civil about it, choosing to explore the misinterpretation instead of trying to satiate ones emotional state of being.

others do no have that choice, once their emotion state of being has been slighted (whether intentional or not) they do not have a choice but to satisfy their perceived emotional state of being before they can learn anything.

conclusion:
if you speak from your emotional state of being, you do not have free will, you are condemned to address your emotional state of being, with no hope of being able to 'get over yourself' (or not distract yourself) to be able to understand the truth behind such misinterpretation/misinformation/misunderstanding.

 

[Baldeee]

no mistake .. you tried to cover it up after it was made obvious...

If by "cover it up" you mean provide a clarification, then yes.
That is the way discussions tend to go.
Someone is unclear.
Clarification is provided.
If you want to see this as a "cover up" that is your perogative.

so what is your definition of freewill that will allow the conclusion you want?

You still don't understand, do you.
Your attempts to score points is blinkering whatever comprehension skills you may have.

I am not using the method I described.
I have never said I was.
I offered it as a method that one could employ if one was adamant that freewill is not illusory.
If their first definition was shown to be illusory then they could adjust the definition until they are satisfied that the definition is not illusory.
If that is their desire.
Consider it a matter of trial and error.
As said, if it is possible to reach definition of freewill that is not illusory, this method may work at arriving at such a definition.

However, I am not aware of any definition that is not ultimately illusory.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Our perceptions do not add to the laws themselves but to our understanding of them, especially at the higher levels of complexity.

So when you said,

Our perceptions in most regards are merely adding to those laws.

you were just talking nonsense?

Atoms do not have the property of hardness, for example, yet we perceive matter to have hardness.

So there is no solids, liquids, or gases, right? It's all just motion, right? We just have illusions of objects?

This property is explainable through the laws of the universe.
The "hardness" I would consider to be an emergent property that we perceive and that does not run contrary to the laws of physics.

So again, no solids, right?

It is explainable through bonding of atoms etc.

So again, no solids?

So in this regard I would say our perception has added to the laws of physics.

Oh you would, would you? I thought you said,

Our perceptions do not add to the laws themselves but to our understanding of them, especially at the higher levels of complexity.

Now you are confusing me even more. Please straighten out the mess you've created in just a few words. It's horrible.

As for what runs contrary, anything that is perceived to operate in a manner that defies the laws of physics.

So the sun doesn't travel around the earth? (still confused)

Whoops, I almost forgot, you forgot to answer this:

If in the morning I wake up and the sun is rising in the east, and then in the evening the sun is setting in the west, that means the sun moves around the earth, right?