The illusion of free will

[Magical Realist]

I thank they are nuthin more than cause-an-effect biological tic-tocks that a mechanical clock woud have.!!!

So that would be a yes then..that consciousness and reason are illusions. Wow..

The decision process is absolutely real.!!!

So decision is NOT an illusion? That when I actually decide to go to one restaurant instead of another I really AM deciding that? So where does the illusion part come in? You WERE claiming freewill to be an illusion weren't you?

Well... the beliefs i have are based on cause an effect... now... if cause an effect doesnt hold true... then im wrong.!!!

Everything that is caused serves as the cause of something else. So by acknowledging that your beliefs are caused you are also acknowledging that they in turn cause something else. Agree?

Both you'r examples use cause an effect an take whatever time it takes... but what im sayin is... it takes no more time for a believer in free will to choose milk or water... than it woud take for a non-believer to make the same choice.!!!

Then why would the brain dedicate so much time and energy to this mere illusion of choosing when it in fact only delays response time? Presumably you posit something else besides conscious choice causing you to drink milk or water. Why wouldn't evolution in fact favor this immediate causation of action without the time it takes to appear to make a choice? IOW, there is no function in having a mere illusion of choice. And evolution doesn't evolve nonfunctional processes. Ever!

Insanity isnt a necessity to enjoy a magic show filled wit illusions.!!!

Insanity would be claiming something to be an illusion and not an illusion at the same time. Something freewill denialists take an inordinate amount of pride in touting before the whole world.

One additional point..Why is it that all our perceptions of our internal states appear to be precisely what they are: the perception of being sick, or tired, or cold, or hungry, or in pain, etc. But with freewill, in your view, we have the only internal state that appears to be precisely opposite to what it is? Why the total reliability of perception in all these cases EXCEPT in the case of freewill? You don't say "I only appear to be feeling sick." or "I only appear to be in pain." Why do you take all THESE internally perceived states at face value but then dismiss freewill as only an illusion? Seems inconsistent to me..

 

[Quantum Quack]

I am aware of the difference.
And it is not just that freewill does not exist in physics.
It is that what exists in the human condition, or however else you want to term it, seems to be contrary to what is possible in physics.

but so to does the reality of life, consciousness and living... does that make life an illusion that is contrary to the laws of physics? For surely life is indeed contrary to those laws...
And if so then why is freewill which is directly associated with life any different in it's ability to contradict those so called laws?
You see the problem with your one eyed assessment is that you presume that you have the whole picture but as yet science has not got the whole picture , far from it.
The reality of self animated beings is that they have to be alive to be animated. Self-animation required self determination. Life, self animation and self determination therefore freewill are directly related.

What say the laws of physics about the reality of life?
According to physics using your reasoning, life is an illusion!

Edit: Oh sorry I just remembered the above would be in contradiction to the conclusion you wish to achieve... well dang it... what to do? what to do?
How can I adjust the truth to fit your agenda? Please let me know so together we can rewrite the "real" laws of the universe accordingly...

 

[Quantum Quack]

The problems I see are twofold:
1. You use fallacious analogies to push home a strawman of your own making (through misunderstanding) that has no bearing to the actual issue in hand.
2. You continue to focus on a point for some 5 or 6 pages for which you have already accepted an explanation.

because you still preach and evangelize that issue with out taking on board just how fallacious it is.
*see my previous post

 

[Quantum Quack]

research the term 'will' in free will, it is a behavioural term as applied to humans not physics. physics have no 'will'

and yes QQ drop it already, move on.. he pry already understands but just doesn't want to 'lose any points'
(in my experience those that accuse are guilty of what they accuse the other of. like 95% of the time)

ahhh this is so true... but more like 100% it's just a matter of degree or scale. IMO
For I have made similar errors of reason in the past and still do even today but with the lessons learned they are as minimal as possible.

 

[Motor Daddy]

How can I adjust the truth to fit your agenda? Please let me know so together we can rewrite it accordingly...

The red headed kid in the back of the class is standing up and waving his hand in the air like a mad man, yelling, "pick me teach, pick me!" repeatedly! So finally the teach has had 'nuff and picks the little red headed step child.

He says, FUDGE IT!

 

[Quantum Quack]

The red headed kid in the back of the class is standing up and waving his hand in the air like a mad man, yelling, "pick me teach, pick me!" repeatedly! So finally the teach has had 'nuff and picks the little red headed step child.

He says, FUDGE IT!

 

[Baldeee]

but so to does the reality of life, consciousness and living... does that make life an illusion that is contrary to the laws of physics? For surely life is indeed contrary to those laws...
And if so then why is freewill which is directly associated with life any different in it's ability to contradict those so called laws?

How is life or consciousness contradictory to the laws?
What requirements are there for life that go against the universe's laws?
That run contrary to those laws?
They are emergent properties, sure, but what they give rise to does not appear to go contrary to any laws.
Freewill does.
As previously explained.

You see the problem with your one eyed assessment is that you presume that you have the whole picture but as yet science has not got the whole picture , far from it.

I don't presume to have all the answers.
I am merely working with what science does have and working from there.

The reality of self animated beings is that they have to be alive to be animated. Self-animation required self determination. Life, self animation and self determination therefore freewill are directly related.

And once more you jump from claim to conclusion.

What say the laws of physics about the reality of life?
According to physics using your reasoning, life is an illusion!

If only you understood my reasoning.
But clearly you don't.
Or you don't want to.
It would be a different matter if you actually understood it so that we could have a sensible conversation.
But you don't.
And your misunderstandings and your flawed reasoning give rise to your false claims of what I have said.

Edit: Oh sorry I just remembered the above would be in contradiction to the conclusion you wish to achieve... well dang it... what to do? what to do?
How can I adjust the truth to fit your agenda? Please let me know so together we can rewrite the "real" laws of the universe accordingly...

As said, your misunderstandings and your flawed reasoning give rise to your false claims of what I have said.
Yet you continue to run with that misunderstanding, despite numerous explanations, and you still deny you're merely out to score points.
Go figure.

 

[Baldeee]

because you still preach and evangelize that issue with out taking on board just how fallacious it is.
*see my previous post

Firstly, it is not fallacious.
You have deliberately misrepresented what I have said on the matter from the outset, from which you arrive at your conclusion that it is.
Secondly, how have I still "preached and evangelised" the issue when it is you who continually raises the matter, despite me having clarified it for you some 6 or 7 pages ago?
You are the one raising it each time.
Not me.
And when you do raise it you continually misrepresent me.
You are deliberately being dishonest.

 

[Quantum Quack]

How is life or consciousness contradictory to the laws?
What requirements are there for life that go against the universe's laws?
That run contrary to those laws?
They are emergent properties, sure, but what they give rise to does not appear to go contrary to any laws.
Freewill does.

So how does cause and effect give rise to life?
How do the laws of the universe as you know them give cause for life to exist?
if you can answer the above properly there's a Nobel prize in it for you...

Surely if science can not explain how those laws give cause for life to exist the same could be stated easily and convincingly for freewill which is directly related with that life?
Sum:
'If freewill is an illusion then so to must life be"

 

[cluelusshusbund]

clueluss husbund
The decision process is absolutely real.!!!

MR
So decision is NOT an illusion? That when I actually decide to go to one restaurant instead of another I really AM deciding that? So where does the illusion part come in? You WERE claiming freewill to be an illusion weren't you?

The decision process (cause an effect) is real... that thers an "I" makin un-influenced choices is an illusion.!!!

MR
Everything that is caused serves as the cause of something else. So by acknowledging that your beliefs are caused you are also acknowledging that they in turn cause something else. Agree?

Yes.!!!

cluelusshusbund
Both you'r examples use cause an effect an take whatever time it takes... but what im sayin is... it takes no more time for a believer in free will to choose milk or water... than it woud take for a non-believer to make the same choice.!!!

MR
Then why would the brain dedicate so much time and energy to this mere illusion of choosing when it in fact only delays response time?
Presumably you posit something else besides conscious choice causing you to drink milk or water. Why wouldn't evolution in fact favor this immediate causation of action without the time it takes to appear to make a choice? IOW, there is no function in having a mere illusion of choice. And evolution doesn't evolve nonfunctional processes. Ever!

The brain uses the necessary time an energy to determine choices thru the process of cause an effect... it doesnt... in addition to that... then use time an energy to create illusions.!!!

"Illusion" is simply what we are discussin... which has nuthin to do wit the response time of choices.!!!

MR
Insanity would be claiming something to be an illusion and not an illusion at the same time. Something freewill denialists take an inordinate amount of pride in touting before the whole world.
One additional point..Why is it that all our perceptions of our internal states appear to be precisely what they are: the perception of being sick, or tired, or cold, or hungry, or in pain, etc. But with freewill, in your view, we have the only internal state that appears to be precisely opposite to what it is? Why the total reliability of perception in all these cases EXCEPT in the case of freewill? You don't say "I only appear to be feeling sick." or "I only appear to be in pain." Why do you take all THESE internally perceived states at face value but then dismiss freewill as only an illusion? Seems inconsistent to me..

I live precisely as if i have free will... but intellectually... i know that free will is an illusion.!!!

 

[Quantum Quack]

But how can you know that it is an illusion? When by ur own reasoning freewill cannot be proven beyond perception.
The topic is unfalsifiable or didn't you know that?

 

[Ahriman]

This is also one of my favorite topics to debate. I think arguments that state since everything can be acted out identically in a || universe miss the point. Free will as I see it is the ability to decide between multiple "courses" of action autonomously. To have free will, however, one must posses a fairly developed reasoning faculty, to enable dispassionate choices between possible actions. If an individual knows the alternatives and can reason effectively, he or she can freely choose to do something. No computer program could flawlessly predict what a free-thinking human being will do, so that is why I think it exists.

 

[Quantum Quack]

This is also one of my favorite topics to debate. I think arguments that state since everything can be acted out identically in a || universe miss the point. Free will as I see it is the ability to decide between multiple "courses" of action autonomously. To have free will, however, one must posses a fairly developed reasoning faculty, to enable dispassionate choices between possible actions. If an individual knows the alternatives and can reason effectively, he or she can freely choose to do something. No computer program could flawlessly predict what a free-thinking human being will do, so that is why I think it exists.

I feel you have a key point to make about the unpredictability of human behavior.
It is pretty obvious I feel, that governments and commercial entities would simply love to be able predict their constituents and customers behavior and to some extent they can especially when dealing with essential goods and services. However once we hit the more optional areas predictability becomes less possible IMO.
If freewill was indeed an illusion, I am pretty confident science, the NLP'ers and the various other mind controllers, would have worked out how to control an entire population by now... in ways that would render them as the determinist seem to think they are already. I am sure they have tried and ultimately failed thankfully...

 

[Baldeee]

We appear to make choices? Do they agree that we make choices, or they don't know what's up? This is not an "appearance" thing. Do we make choices or not? It is a yes or no question. There is no debate about if we make choices. We either do or we don't. Which is it?

We appear to.
But it could be no more free than a computer spitting out a number.
Just more complex, and with the appearance of it being free.
Your false dilemma would also have you believing in magic...
Stage magicians appear to saw people in half.
The reason we can say that what they do is an illusion is because we know that what they are doing is contrary to the laws of biology etc.
But it certainly appears that they do.
Hence judging by appearance is a poor place to start.

If the appearance that we make choices mirrors that we are actually making choices? I must be misunderstanding you, because it sounds like to me that you are saying that you're not sure if we make choices or not. Do we or don't we make choices?

From a practical point of view, yes we do.
We perceive ourselves to.
We perceive others to.
No one has ever disputed this.
If your definition of freewill starts from the point of view of perception then, as at least one other has said on this thread, there is no issue and such a freewill can be said to be as genuine as the definition allows: I.e. judged by perception.
But if one is looking for a genuine freewill then you have look beneath mere perception.

If you don't know the starting cause then you can't talk about cause and effect. How are you gonna talk about cause and effect when you haven't even defined what the starting conditions are? Do you choose to not define the start conditions so that later they can't be used against you?

Yours is fallacious reasoning.
I am working with principles, not specifics.
The principle of cause and effect is the important thing.
To require one to understand specifics is to introduce a straw man.

I gave you the starting conditions, or the cause. The pitcher threw the ball (which happened at a specific point in space at a specific point in time.) The effect was the ball hit the catcher's mitt (which happened at a specific point in space at a specific point in time.) The batter made a choice to start swinging, then made a choice to stop swinging. Are you suggesting that the atoms made those choices for him? If so, can you explain how you've come to the conclusion that atoms make choices?

You only gave the conditions that you are aware of.
It is not feasible to give the starting conditions of every single atom and quark and electron within the brain, the body, the surrounding area, the sounds, the smells etc.
Your cry notion of what you are considering causes and effects merely highlights that you are only considering things at someone's conscious level, whereas the argument for illusion requires you to consider every minutest cause and effect.

So your intelligence level then also must be that you don't know how a car works, just that you put gas in it and turn the key. You don't know how any electrical device works, just that you have to plug it in and turn it on. I get that from reading your posts. What next, that you were just kidding, that you really do know a lot of stuff? Oh, maybe it's that you play the stupid card when you need it, and nobody ever detects it?

I know how a lot of things work.
But you have amply demonstrated that one doesn't need to in order to be able to use them.
You tell me of every single cause in your example and then you might have grounds for such pathetic criticism.
And by cause, yes I do mean the status of every single molecule, atom, quark, atom etc.

And then you can tell me why your inability to do so suddenly means that the principle of cause and effect should be invalidated.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Baldeee, One day you'll explain it to yourself. But if you think you're explaining something to me by running around in circles you're sadly mistaken. I want just one of two words in your reply to me, and that is your answer to the question, Do we make choices? Just a YES if you think we make choices, or a NO if you think we don't make choices.

I'm not gonna play your little Ring Around the Rosie word thingy game with you. If you think you're fooling me by adding more words, you're wrong.

 

[Baldeee]

Baldeee, One day you'll explain it to yourself. But if you think you're explaining something to me by running around in circles you're sadly mistaken. I want just one word of two words in your reply to me, and that is your answer to the question, Do we make choices? Just a YES if you think we make choices, or a NO if you think we don't make choices.

I'm not gonna play your little Ring Around the Rosie word thingy game with you. If you think you're fooling me by adding more words, you're wrong.

Depends on whether you consider choice to be the apparent ability to make a selection, or the genuine ability to reach a selection without being directed to it solely by the laws of the universe.
If you want a yes or no answer to your question then you need to be specific as to meaning.
Otherwise it is a loaded question.
Not to mention possible false dilemma etc.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Depends on whether you consider choice to be the apparent ability to make a selection, or the genuine ability to reach a selection without being directed to it solely by the laws of the universe.
If you want a yes or no answer to your question then you need to be specific as to meaning.
Otherwise it is a loaded question.
Not to mention possible false dilemma etc.

You still haven't indicated what laws you are referring to?
the laws that give cause to life might be a start... care to quote them?
you keep quoting laws that are currently unknown as far as I and the rest of the world know [except for Baldeee of course!]...
Do you seriously consider the laws that apply to "dead" stuff apply equally to living stuff?
Would you change your view if proved wrong or would you take your error of reason to the grave with you?

 

[Motor Daddy]

Depends on whether you consider choice to be the apparent ability to make a selection, or the genuine ability to reach a selection without being directed to it solely by the laws of the universe.

So this is all a personal choice of how you define choice? In your view of the world, there is no absolute answer as to whether people make choices or not. Case closed. Right?

 

[Baldeee]

You still haven't indicated what laws you are referring to?
the laws that give cause to life might be a start... care to quote them?

Post #601.

you keep quoting laws that are currently unknown as far as I and the rest of the world know [except for Baldeee of course!]...

You think the laws of thermodynamics, conservation, motion, quantum mechanics, gravity, are wholly unknown?

Do you seriously consider the laws that apply to "dead" stuff apply equally to living stuff?

Yes.

Would you change your view if proved wrong or would you take your error of reason to the grave with you?

There is no error of reason that I am aware of, and certainly none that has been pointed out that is a valid criticism.
The conclusion does seem to follow from the arguments, and thus reasoning is valid.
The conclusion may be incorrect, however, if the base knowledge/assumptions is shown to be incorrect, and then of course I would rationally adjust my view to incorporate the new knowledge.

 

[Baldeee]

So this is all a personal choice of how you define choice? In your view of the world, there is no absolute answer as to whether people make choices or not. Case closed. Right?

There is an absolute answer for each definition of choice that is entirely free of ambiguity and that does not in some way beg the question being asked.