The illusion of free will

[Quantum Quack]

If you take that through the doors of the Biology Dept, QQ you get a whole new fresh look at it.

Will they state categorically that human comply with the laws of thermodynamics especially the laws of conservation?
Point to a single study that verifies that position?
Doing an actual study is fraught with the possibility that the laws are indeed proved to be inadequate when dealing with human life. Which is probably why they don't do that study in a away that provides an unambiguous result.
after all the "Nothing can defy the laws of thermodynamics" catch cry is pretty persuasive...

 

[Quantum Quack]

I've copied your whole quote, just so you don't get a chance to edit it later...
But I seriously have not had such a laugh from this site before as I did when reading this.
Are you going to allow people to post this as well wherever they like?

I have no problem what so ever if people wish to utilize what I post.

But let's begin...
You clearly do not realise that it is the law of gravity that explains why we need energy to jump.
It is the law of gravity that explains why we need energy to stand up.
It is the law of gravity that explains why, when we jump, we fall back down.
At no point has anything ever been shown to contravene the law of gravity.
Ever.

animated life does indeed allow us to defy the laws of gravity...

if we were dead and simply matter and substance with out life we would then have to comply with the laws of gravity.
Are you so thick you can't see deep enough to realize the validity of this argument?
You seem to believe that you are offering a contra when you claim the laugh ability of a point, but you don't offer contra you simply avoid it because you have no contra and it is you that is laughable in reflection.

I'm not saying it can't happen, but it is considered a law because it has never been invalidated, and is demonstrated to hold at every turn.
Your understanding on this matter is demonstrably wrong.

My understanding is simple, a lump of dead carbon obeys the laws of physics. A living animated lump of carbon has the capacity to defy the laws of physics as they would apply to something that is dead.

When we stand up we demonstrate the law of gravity in action, we do not defy it.
We overcome the gravitational force we experience pulling us down.
But this force is not the law of gravity.

the law of gravity does not allow for anything to decide to defy it thus a living human life is in defiance of said laws. Therefore declared as "real" according to your criteria being placed upon freewill.
Our ability to deliberately by choice, stand up against the attraction of gravity is evidence of a living [not dead] human capacity to defy those laws.

The same goes for the laws of conservation.
In a closed system, such as the universe is deemed to be, the laws of conservation are (iirc) considered axiomatic.

call to authority ...
In closed system as currently understood by science, human self animation would be impossible.
Ever heard of zero point energy?

All we humans do is convert energy from one form into another.
From food into useful work, into heat, into noise etc.
You may think you have "very good reason for thinking" that the law of conservation does not hold, even for humans, but you would be wrong.

Simply because everything does.
Period.

call to authority...

Humanity doesn't get a free pass from obeying the laws.
Nor does life in general.

unsupported opinion...
call to authority

(Although if you are arguing for some non-material essence from a deity or the equivalent then we're into a whole other ballpark of discussion.)

why call in a deity when your inane comments or lack of them suffice well enough on their own.

There are plenty of differences between the two.
The ability to defy the physical laws is just not one of them.
The main difference is that the dead body is no longer able to convert one form of energy into another.
But it is still obeying the laws just as much as a living person is.

and what energy are you talking about exactly?


Food consumption is not enough to maintain life, or consciousness... simple really!

and calling to authority is not going to offer one shred of value to the discussion.

But as said, I rather enjoyed the laugh.
So many thanks.

until you realize who is being laughed at... seriously!

I'll repeat the question for you to dwell on:
"Have you ever seen a dead man standing?
then go away and use what little intelligence you have and work it all out for yourself. It really is not that hard you know...!

 

[Quantum Quack]

Please, Quantum Quack, I'd seriously suggest you get someone to vet your posts on this matter before you press too many more buttons.

Why?

 

[Baldeee]

the only scientifically productive question in your entire post..
i'm taking it to another response..

Please do.

you have been the only one stating it like that, your refusal to acknowledge that statement without the 'appearance' word thrown in, is what is causing you to become at odds with everyone.(one of)

Sarkus, barcelonic, cluelusshusband... all say the same even if they don't use the same word.
And I use that word because it is probably the most significant word in the debate.
Unless one's argument can show that it is more than mere appearance then one will never be able to argue for a genuine freewill.
Both a genuine and illusory freewill appear the same to our consciousness.
So merely looking at the appearance is never going to establish, or even start to question, which it is.

is there free will? yes or no.(do not add the word 'appearance'! i'm not too old to spank you..)
if there wasn't, how could you change how you feel?
do you make your own choices? yes or no.

Why is the word "appearance" such an issue for you when it is at the core of this very matter?
Why hamstring me and then blame me for not playing ball?
But okay: does freewill exist? It exists in the same way that a levitation performed by a magician can be said to exist.
How could I change how I feel? The same way everyone else does.
Do I make my own choices? In as much as everyone else makes their own.
Yes, I know, as clear as if I used the word "appearance".
But as said, if you want me to play ball....

1: by obfuscating(inserting an amount of vagueness) this statement you show you do not want to be clear.(did I use the word right? )

Yes, I think your use as you meant it was correct, but I would suggest that it should be "by obfuscating in this statement...".
However, my answer was not meant to show that I do not want to be clear, it is meant to make the point that it is, or at least should be, irrelevant.

2:it would begin to, but in the end, its not what you know but how you use it, that matters.
3:which two are correct? if any? you are careful not to commit to an answer.

I am careful.
Why should qualifications matter in a debate?
Should it not be only what one says?
Within that what one can support?

Who said that only two were correct?

4:you get credibility here by being a productive poster....

I give credibility to those who can demonstrate that they are correct.

 

[Quantum Quack]

@Baldeee, cc NMSquirrel,

Quote from Baldeee
No, it's your responsibility to share with what you think is right, and to have the decency to explain why you think you are right.
That is all I do.
All I have done.

But all you do is is explain why you believe someone is wrong , not why you are right... big difference...
as you have yet to state and then hold to a sustainable position on this issue with out deliberately avoiding it when called to account for a mistake, [ie. change the definition to achieve the desired outcome] or logical fallacy.
This thread is not about freewill being an illusion but about the egocentric behavior of an offended poster..called Baldeee.

 

[Quantum Quack]

@ Baldeee,
Have you ever heard of the term "Unfalsifiable"?

You, Sarkus and ilk are unable to prove either way, that freewill is an illusion of appearance or that it is as real a phenomena as life is.
Note: the deliberate choice of words "as real a phenomena as life is

The question/issue is couched in a way that is unfalsifiable...

ie. can You prove our sun [star] exists and is not merely an illusion with out using your senses to determine so?
therefore, your conclusion is the sun IS an illusion... when the answer is that the sun COULD be an illusion of our senses.
However there is absolutely no way to determine an answer.. thus unfalsifiable the question is.

you then call upon the authority of other illusions to support you claim.. so go figure... you approach to this subject is total nonsense ...

 

[Aqueous Id]

Will they state categorically that human comply with the laws of thermodynamics especially the laws of conservation?
Point to a single study that verifies that position?

You'd have to reframe the question so it doesn't ask the respondent to choose between two false premises.

What's on your mind concerning the laws of biophysics?

Doing an actual study is fraught with the possibility that the laws are indeed proved to be inadequate when dealing with human life.

There is ample evidence of the applicability of the laws of physics upon organisms. What aspect did you have in mind?

Which is probably why they don't do that study in a away that provides an unambiguous result.

What study are you referring to? You seem to harbor an anti-science bent. Why is that? Does science conflict with your religious views? I vaguely recall that we had a discussion of this sort a long time ago, but it's been to long for me to remember what your position was.

after all the "Nothing can defy the laws of thermodynamics" catch cry is pretty persuasive...

What are you referring to? The laws of thermodynamics are restricted to systems. To the extent we can define cells, tissues, organs and systems (the central nervous system, the musculoskeletal system, and so on) as systems, then yes, the laws of thermodynamics are enforced by nature. But that is not without understanding what restrictions are placed on the analyst who is modeling such living material as a system.

I'm anticipating the Creationist argument from this tack you've taken. Is that where you're headed?

 

[Quantum Quack]

You'd have to reframe the question so it doesn't ask the respondent to choose between two false premises.

the question was:

Will they state categorically that human comply with the laws of thermodynamics especially the laws of conservation?
Point to a single study that verifies that position?

Is there a reason why you feel this question imposes a double negative?
That science has to follow the scientific method when making it's claims?
Are you anti-science when you imply or suggest that it doesn't?
To my knowledge a study as required using the scientific method has never been comprehensively carried out.
There was however one similar question being researched ages ago , when they placed a team of individuals in a closed system environment [a large glass house]... If I can find the details and results I shall post it here...
Certainly sleep deprivation experiments by universities [since banned] and military interests [ongoing] have reached some interesting conclusions...again If necessary I am sure links can be searched for and found.

 

[Quantum Quack]

@ Aqueous ID,

I'm anticipating the Creationist argument from this tack you've taken. Is that where you're headed?

ahh the religio-phobe has raised his ugly head... nah! No need to bring creationist argument into it. The arguments currently offered fall on their own swords so to speak.
Why do you wish to bring the creationist view into this...? Is it to obfuscate the debate with emotional hubris perhaps?



edit: If I were to take the creationist perspective [ note: I am not a creationist ] I would not be anti science, in fact I would be encouraging science to explore the realm of the creator as thoroughly and to the best of their ability as they can... [chuckle]

 

[Quantum Quack]

The contention that freewill is an illusion because we are unable to transcend our consciousness/perception to consider evidence that freewill is real and not an illusion is absurd and unfalsifiable.
Therefore an invalid contention.

end of story... IMO
The rest of this discussion is about issues that impose a somewhat lesser degree of futility.

The main claim as posited by Baldeee [if he is able to stick to it] is that:
For free will to be real it must defy the laws of physics.
and because nothing can defy the laws of physics, freewill must be an illusion of appearance and have no reality to it.

My contra [in brief] is that:
Self animation, self determination and life for humans is intrinsically related.
I have chosen the laws Gravity and their effects to be a field of relevance
It is only when a human is dead that he is compelled to comply with the said laws of gravity.

If I prove that humans can defy the laws of gravity by simply standing up [ demonstrating self will, life etc] then I have accomplished the task.
and as human life, self animation and self determination are intrinsically related the reality of freewill is the most likely outcome as it is as real as life, as already agreed to be, is.

The claim that nothing can defy the laws of physics [as currently known] is thus proven to be invalid, because living humans, by free choice, do it or not do it, every day of their lives.

 

[Sarkus]

The contention that freewill is an illusion because we are unable to transcend our consciousness/perception to consider evidence that freewill is real and not an illusion is absurd and unfalsifiable.

The issue of freewill is a metaphysical notion, not science, and so issues of falsifiability are rather moot. You can no more falsify the notion that it is genuine. All you can do is support the notion of how it appears to be (sorry, NMSquirrel, but I think Baldeee is quite correct in the importance of this word to the issue, as barcelonic raised within the first few posts of this thread). Specific claims can be falsifiable, but not whether freewill is genuine or illusory.
All one can attempt to do is set out the argument for one or the other and try to support it as best they can. Such as starting from axiomatic premises.

end of story... IMO

Given your interesting notions regarding the Centre of Gravity, and the ability of life to defy the law of gravity, I really don't think it is "end of story". IMO.
If only you had the balls to raise those notions in the physics forums. I'd happily join in the fun.

 

[Quantum Quack]

The issue of freewill is a metaphysical notion, not science, and so issues of falsifiability are rather moot. You can no more falsify the notion that it is genuine. All you can do is support the notion of how it appears to be (sorry, NMSquirrel, but I think Baldeee is quite correct in the importance of this word to the issue, as barcelonic raised within the first few posts of this thread). Specific claims can be falsifiable, but not whether freewill is genuine or illusory.

and why would the majority of humanity need to comply with your unprovable contention that freewill is an appearance? when they believe and intuitively know that it isn't. Why should they believe you?

All one can attempt to do is set out the argument for one or the other and try to support it as best they can. Such as starting from axiomatic premises.

by claiming that the sun is an illusion of appearance one could achieve the same result...

Given your interesting notions regarding the Centre of Gravity, and the ability of life to defy the law of gravity, I really don't think it is "end of story". IMO.
If only you had the balls to raise those notions in the physics forums. I'd happily join in the fun.

The fact about the center of gravity was to prove that the effect of nothing is present yet the cause is not. Certainly controversial but easily proved.
The discussion at the time was about how cause and effect is overwhelmingly deterministic on the making of choices. I countered by saying that the majority of existence is volume, space, vacancy, oblivion, void and offered the center of gravity as empirical evidence to support it.
I will repeat one such question as an example:
How important is a vacant chair in a crowded auditorium, if you have to stand 2 hours instead of sit?
Can you defy gravity for 2 hours easily?

If only you had the balls to raise those notions in the physics forums. I'd happily join in the fun.

The P & M forum is or was so closed to controversy the thread would been moved to pseudo science in no time.
Like raising the issue of a usable and consistent definition for the term " Energy". Impossible as proved. pseudo science for that thread...
You science guys after so many thousand years, can't even define "energy" properly in a way that is consistent... and Aquarious Id and others have the nerve to suggest I AM anti science.... bah!
So yes, theoretical science has some serious issues of credibility as far as I am concerned. That does not make me anti science as the paranoia may provoke you into believing.

 

[Sarkus]

My contra [in brief] is that:
Self animation, self determination and life for humans is intrinsically related.

Do you consider plants, fungi or amoebas to have freewill? 'Cos if not you are special pleading for humans in this regard, as if there is life and no freewill then it is not intrinsically related.

I have chosen the laws Gravity and their effects to be a field of relevance
It is only when a human is dead that he is compelled to comply with the said laws of gravity.

If I prove that humans can defy the laws of gravity by simply standing up [ demonstrating self will, life etc] then I have accomplished the task.
and as human life, self animation and self determination are intrinsically related the reality of freewill is the most likely outcome as it is as real as life, as already agreed to be, is.

The claim that nothing can defy the laws of physics [as currently known] is thus proven to be invalid, because living humans, by free choice, do it or not do it, every day of their lives.

Well, for this, I disagree with what you have posted at a fundamental level, and forgive me for not giving you any credibility in this regard, so I have raised a thread for this in the Physics forum to get a more informed opinion on the matter: here
Maybe I'll learn something from it.

 

[Aqueous Id]

the question was:


Is there a reason why you feel this question imposes a double negative?
That science has to follow the scientific method when making it's claims?
Are you anti-science when you imply or suggest that it doesn't?
To my knowledge a study as required using the scientific method has never been comprehensively carried out.

What do you want to know about thermodynamics?

There was however one similar question being researched ages ago , when they placed a team of individuals in a closed system environment [a large glass house]... If I can find the details and results I shall post it here...
Certainly sleep deprivation experiments by universities [since banned] and military interests [ongoing] have reached some interesting conclusions...again If necessary I am sure links can be searched for and found.

What is the question?

 

[Aqueous Id]

@ Aqueous ID,

ahh the religio-phobe has raised his ugly head...

Actually one day a month or two ago you opened a thread asking something intelligent so I took you off ignore.

nah! No need to bring creationist argument into it. The arguments currently offered fall on their own swords so to speak.

I don't know what that means.

Why do you wish to bring the creationist view into this...? Is it to obfuscate the debate with emotional hubris perhaps?

You raised some unspecified concern about thermo. in connection with life. Since you are not propounding any facts on microbiology here, that left me to conclude that you learned to make such a connection by reading Creationist pseudoscience. Hence I asked you for clarification.

edit: If I were to take the creationist perspective [ note: I am not a creationist ]

Then what other possible source is there for the question about how thermo. relates to life?

I would not be anti science, in fact I would be encouraging science to explore the realm of the creator as thoroughly and to the best of their ability as they can... [chuckle]

Yes the Big Bang creates everything so it's subject of enormous scientific research.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Do you consider plants, fungi or amoebas to have freewill? 'Cos if not you are special pleading for humans in this regard, as if there is life and no freewill then it is not intrinsically related.

this threads topic is concerning human freewill is it not...why would I wish to include a bacteria in the debate when we have expressly specified Human life?

Well, for this, I disagree with what you have posted at a fundamental level, and forgive me for not giving you any credibility in this regard, so I have raised a thread for this in the Physics forum to get a more informed opinion on the matter: here
Maybe I'll learn something from it.

yes... we shall see how long the controversial issue will stay on the board [ it'll be moved before google trawls and picks up on it.. my bet]

 

[Quantum Quack]

Actually one day a month or two ago you opened a thread asking something intelligent so I took you off ignore.

now that is some ignore system you have... eh?

I don't know what that means.

your problem or mine?

You raised some unspecified concern about thermo. in connection with life. Since you are not propounding any facts on microbiology here, that left me to conclude that you learned to make such a connection by reading Creationist pseudoscience. Hence I asked you for clarification.

hence the mention of religio-phobia...

Then what other possible source is there for the question about how thermo. relates to life?

I don't know what that means... sorry...

 

[Aqueous Id]

now that is some ignore system you have... eh?

It's not my system; it belongs to the site owners. Yes, it does not completely block out everything the unwanted poster has posted. When a third poster responds to you and lifts your text into a quote-tagged section, then all of that is exposed despite the rest of the blackout. Also whenever we refresh a screen after the logon has timed out, all original content is exposed.

I don't know what that means.

your problem or mine?

If you wish to be understood you should strive for clarity. It's coming back to me now why I had you on ignore.

hence the mention of religio-phobia...

The question remains open. What is the source of your concern about the relationship between thermo. and organisms? You've established no factual predicate for introducing it. What exactly is your claim, and what evidence is it based on?

Then what other possible source is there for the question about how thermo. relates to life?

I don't know what that means... sorry...

You don't know what "source" means? It means "evidence" (usu. from a resource). So, for clarification: what evidence were you basing your remark on, when you said there was (or should be) a relationship between humans (as bioorganisms) and thermodynamics?

 

[iceaura]

There is no little guy in there, standing aside from the firing patterns, being deluded about what's running the show.

The ideas that cause the ideas, the patterns of patterns of firing complexes that feature the attribute we label "will" and the degrees of freedom it possesses, are in a higher order of organization of the same general swirl that produces the ad hoc approximation we term "cause and effect". Now there is an illusion - we know better, we have all the theory and so forth we need to break the spell, but we will never be able to watch a tennis ball bounce without automatically attributing its motions to "cause and effect". Few more powerful illusions exist.

One can harbor delusions, illusions, and errors about the will - that it is supernatural, that it can exert physical force, etc - but the thing itself with its degrees of freedom is as much a part of reality as any other feature of the complex of patterns at that logical level.

Freedom of the will is therefore more real, less demonstrably an illusion, than cause and effect. Or the color red.

 

[Quantum Quack]

It's not my system; it belongs to the site owners. Yes, it does not completely block out everything the unwanted poster has posted. When a third poster responds to you and lifts your text into a quote-tagged section, then all of that is exposed despite the rest of the blackout. Also whenever we refresh a screen after the logon has timed out, all original content is exposed.


If you wish to be understood you should strive for clarity. It's coming back to me now why I had you on ignore.



The question remains open. What is the source of your concern about the relationship between thermo. and organisms? You've established no factual predicate for introducing it. What exactly is your claim, and what evidence is it based on?



You don't know what "source" means? It means "evidence" (usu. from a resource). So, for clarification: what evidence were you basing your remark on, when you said there was (or should be) a relationship between humans (as bioorganisms) and thermodynamics?

If you were seriously interested in pursuing a higher truth about this issue you would not need to ask, and quote the posts in question directly.
I have no reason to believe you have the slightest interest in the actual issues being raised.
Perhaps when you are done searching for "Gods" under peoples beds and in their closets we may enter into some productive discussion...
and by all means feel free to censor your self from reality by pushing that iggy button, any time you feel the need to.