CHRIS.Q
Registered Senior Member
The illusion of free will
- Thread starter barcelonic
- Start date
They don't need to. No one is forcing them. I and others offer our view. And the premises upon which it is based. By all means reach a different conclusion, no one is forcing you to accept our view. But at least understand what the view is that is being presented. And if your only reason for not accepting is "well, we intuitively know otherwise," then I guess you get disappointed each time your intuition proves wrong.
And that is an axiomatic premise?
Furthermore, no one has talked about an "illusion of appearance". It is an illusion because its appearance runs contrary to the laws of physics. And if you want to argue that everything subjective is an illusion then we are talking categorically different types of illusion... one which is so by mere dint of perceiving things subjectively, and the other by dint of the requirements for it to be genuine running contrary to the universal laws.
I think you know that if it was "easily proved" it would not be controversial. I think it has already been argued that what you are referring to as the CoG is merely an abstract notion, the point through which the net force appears to operate. It does not exist as anything other than that.
The terms you use (void, vacancy, oblivion etc) as applied to this question are relative to an occupied chair. They do not exist in isolation, but only as a relative measure.
You provide any evidence that "nothing" can actually exist without reference to anything else, and you may be on to something.
As you will hopefully discover from the post in the P&M thread, you can not defy (the laws of) gravity at all. What you can overcome is the gravitational forces that are described by the laws.
Forgive me for being blunt, but there is no controversy in what you have posted with regard defying the law of gravity: it is simply wrong.
You really are quick to suggest that anyone who disagrees with you suffers from paranoia, aren't you. Is there a reason for this?
And there is nothing theoretical about the law of gravity. Proven time and time again to hold firm.
so you feel the distinction between an inanimate lump of carbon [which comply with the laws of physics], and an animated living lump of carbon which doesn't comply and in fact is capable of resisting the attraction of gravity on it's own merit is irrelevant to this discussion?
I believe you are over-estimating the capacity of the members of that forum or any for that matter to hold the last say in the matter...
Animated Human life forms have the ability to defy the laws of gravity because they can resist the attractive forces involved at will. This is easily demonstrate by simply standing up. An inanimate lump of carbon has no capacity to defy the laws of attraction.It can not stand up in defiance of those laws.
How Humans can stand up in defiance of gravitational attraction is the big "life question" and one yet to be answered by science.
when science can define Energy in a consistent manner I may change my opinion...
until then it's credibility is seriously lacking. If due to your paranoia you wish to claim I am Anti Science then go right ahead.. but realize that view is totally wrong.
Are you completely satisfied with the consistency of definitions for the term Energy, in use currently?
How does asking you to explain your position drag all that baggage in?
I asked because your statement was obscure. I quoted you because that's how boards work. Were you expecting special treatment of some kind? What, other than telepathy, is the method for asking you to explain yourself, without simply posting the question?
I stated my interest up front. I explained that "free will" is an artifact of religion, whereas "will" is a faculty of vertebrates, originating in their brains. One is therefore real, and the other is artificial. I suggested that you examine the subject of will in the context of Biology, and you asked me if that was going to lead to an answer about whether humans violate the laws of entropy or energy conservation. I asked you what you meant by that.
How do you arrive at all these other conclusions? And why are you so reluctant to explain what you meant?
You introduced religious themes here, not me.
Why are you imagining me in people's bedrooms? :bugeye:
I'm, not sure about that. I took you off ignore because I believed you had decided to have an adult level conversation with passers by. Was I wrong?
No the ignore button simply makes you invisible to me (mostly). If you want to present me with a piece of reality you can start by answering the very simple questions I asked:
How does recasting the religion-based notion of "free will" as the biologically endowed faculty of "will" involve thermodynamics or conservation of energy? What did you mean by asking if humans violate either? How do you expect a person can violate a law of nature--by their mere existence (i.e. abiogenesis vs divine/magical creation) or by some act?
All valid questions however I simply do not believe you are really interested in an answer.. that's all...
the amount of work need to put together a contention in a manner you would be satisfied with simply isn't worth it...given that I do not believe you have real interest in pursuing the truth but are more interested in your religious witch hunt.
According to you any notion of freewill is a religious theme...such is the nature of your obsession...and to be honest I had never considered it in those terms until having to, due to yours and others insistence over the years here at sci forums.
now why would I wish to do that? You seem quite happy with your own version of reality...
Free will, in terms of energy and entropy, is connected to neuron design and long term memory. A neuron will use energy to pump and exchange cations. The result is sodium cations concentrate outside the membrane and potassium cations concentrate inside the membrane. This energy intensive process creates a membrane potential to reflect stored energy. This energy intensive pumping action also causes an entropy potential, since the two different cations would prefer blend into one uniform solution on both sides of the membrane. They are separated and are thereby given an entropy potential to blend and randomize.
When neurons fire, these two potentials are lowered, as the cations exchange. The release of energy and entropy move along neural pathways, for example toward the brain stem, as defined by instinct and other internal processes. Will power involves diverting these natural energy/entropy pathways, by placing memory as diverters in the natural flow. The diversion targets the energy and entropy to new areas. Human can override natural instinct, if we block a pathway that instinct makes use of. Will power is needed to write memory at a particle place.
As a visualization, picture a water fountain that is pumping water to a height H. The height H defines the potential energy we have created. The pipe that moves the water, compact the randomness of the original pool, into a hose shape; lowers entropy. The pump generates work. As the water cascades down, the energy lowers and the entropy increases, as the water cascades down the levels of the fountain and slashes here and there bad to the pool. These are the natural pathways. The fountain appears the same, yet is always changing due to entropy randomizations.
What we do with will power is place bricks and rocks (long term memories) in key places in the foundation to divert flow. We can force the cascade to move around an obstruction and.or concentrate down one side of the fountain. Knowledge of the unconscious mind is important to free will since there are many places the water is cascading to and from, with free will able to divert a higher percent than just will power.
A water fountain cannot change itself nor can instinctive animal. But humans have two centers of consciousness, with the conscious center able to add bricks and rocks to the unconscious fountain, which is defined by the original center.
In you'r example above... isnt ther causes for everthang you describe.???
Last edited:
QQ
I really have to agree with the others when you use your gravity/stand up analogy.
it doesn't defy physics, physics would cause the person standing up to get tired after awhile, which confirms the entropy/thermodynamics/conservation of energy (?one of them?)
so to tie this back to the flip opinion of free will does not exist..
so you (anti-free will ppl)
suggest that the choice of sitting down is not a free will choice but a matter of physics, we stand up, get tired then sit down to conserve energy, correct?
can you show more examples of how physics determine our choices?
how does that apply to a choice like whether to take that new job or not?
(assume this choice is an even choice, ie both options have the same amount of points/counterpoints.)
yes I would agree that the physicality of our existence is dependant on physics, but choices are not always about the physical.
I have been trying to think of the counter argument for free will, the one that explains why physics would determine the outcome of a choice.
although I can think of many instances where physics determine some of our choices, the only one I can communicate effectively is:
how do we choose what we eat?
yes this can be argued that physics are responsible for determining what we eat (cravings have been associated with what our body needs),but then again I can go against my cravings, I do not have to submit to a craving,
again I submit, its not the law of physics that determine free will, it is our behavior, physics can determine what we look like, physics can determine how we move, how we breath, how long we will live,how tall we are, but it does not rule our choices. sure there are those type of ppl that go what I would call 'autopilot' they do not think, they just act, these type I would consider the anti-free will group, since they do not actively explore the opposite of what they think/know/feel/believe.
lol..proof free will exists.. believers,(arguing the anti-theist points, not my own) how can someone believe in an illusion? answer; cause they choose to.
how would physics play into the decision to believe or not to believe? after all according to the anti-theist God does not exist, (non physicality)
how does physics determine how we feel?
why doesn't the ability to change how we feel negate the physics?
iow if physics determine how we feel, how come we can change how we feel?
(think/feel/know/believe)
what laws determine our behavior?
not physics laws, but legislated laws, laws that we chose to implement, laws that we can choose to ignore. (regardless of consequence)
if free will does not exist, then how can we choose to argue against it?
how can we be free to argue a unsustainable position?
why is it so important/critical that free will does not exist?
I really have to agree with the others when you use your gravity/stand up analogy.
it doesn't defy physics, physics would cause the person standing up to get tired after awhile, which confirms the entropy/thermodynamics/conservation of energy (?one of them?)
so to tie this back to the flip opinion of free will does not exist..
so you (anti-free will ppl)
suggest that the choice of sitting down is not a free will choice but a matter of physics, we stand up, get tired then sit down to conserve energy, correct?
can you show more examples of how physics determine our choices?
how does that apply to a choice like whether to take that new job or not?
(assume this choice is an even choice, ie both options have the same amount of points/counterpoints.)
yes I would agree that the physicality of our existence is dependant on physics, but choices are not always about the physical.
I have been trying to think of the counter argument for free will, the one that explains why physics would determine the outcome of a choice.
although I can think of many instances where physics determine some of our choices, the only one I can communicate effectively is:
how do we choose what we eat?
yes this can be argued that physics are responsible for determining what we eat (cravings have been associated with what our body needs),but then again I can go against my cravings, I do not have to submit to a craving,
again I submit, its not the law of physics that determine free will, it is our behavior, physics can determine what we look like, physics can determine how we move, how we breath, how long we will live,how tall we are, but it does not rule our choices. sure there are those type of ppl that go what I would call 'autopilot' they do not think, they just act, these type I would consider the anti-free will group, since they do not actively explore the opposite of what they think/know/feel/believe.
lol..proof free will exists.. believers,(arguing the anti-theist points, not my own) how can someone believe in an illusion? answer; cause they choose to.
how would physics play into the decision to believe or not to believe? after all according to the anti-theist God does not exist, (non physicality)
how does physics determine how we feel?
why doesn't the ability to change how we feel negate the physics?
iow if physics determine how we feel, how come we can change how we feel?
(think/feel/know/believe)
what laws determine our behavior?
not physics laws, but legislated laws, laws that we chose to implement, laws that we can choose to ignore. (regardless of consequence)
if free will does not exist, then how can we choose to argue against it?
how can we be free to argue a unsustainable position?
why is it so important/critical that free will does not exist?
Having thought about it over night, the issue can be further explained by casting your imagination back to pre-life states in this universe.
A state where life has not evolved and then ask if gravitational attraction was the same then as now How and why would something evolve that would have to struggle against gravitational and other natural forces and eventually successfully stand up by act of will, against those forces of gravity?
There appears no evolutionary requirement or rational to support the need for this natural evolution of gravitational resistance to occur.
I would actually be very interested in Aqueous IDs thoughts on this [ evolution wiz! ] as he no doubt will call for the need of a "deity" of some sort to promote the existence of gravity defying living organisms evolving against all forces from the primordial soup post big bang.
@NMSquirrel
I guess one could suggest an incredible fear is associated with the impotency science has in explaining the nature of life, death and the human condition. Freewill simply stands in the way of science being able to develop a fully contained and controlled human experience. It [freewill] is the anathema to order and the primary cause of chaos...type fear.
Religious organizations through out history have recognized this from the start imposing sanctions and censorship up on it's constituents under the guise of empowerment of freedom, liberation from sin and death etc etc...but only if you follow our predetermined way. [order vs chaos, liberty vs oppression etc]
The sheer act of arguing about the reality of freewill reinforces the notion even stringer in the minds of those arguing, so this to has a small bearing IMO.
In absolute terms freewill is utter chaos, insanity and is deliberately , as Wellwisher has suggested , blocked by ourselves, by choice, with the ambition to improve and manage order and avoid of chaos.
If free will is an illusion then the existence of the world's culture and society would be doubtful indeed. Humans would have extinguished themselves thousands of years ago IMO simply because if freewill is an illusion so to is responsibility and consequence, and the cost of making a decision would be zero, emotionally, and therefore psychically leading to a global society psychopaths and sociopaths.
this is actually one of the most important questions IMO
I guess one could suggest an incredible fear is associated with the impotency science has in explaining the nature of life, death and the human condition. Freewill simply stands in the way of science being able to develop a fully contained and controlled human experience. It [freewill] is the anathema to order and the primary cause of chaos...type fear.
Religious organizations through out history have recognized this from the start imposing sanctions and censorship up on it's constituents under the guise of empowerment of freedom, liberation from sin and death etc etc...but only if you follow our predetermined way. [order vs chaos, liberty vs oppression etc]
The sheer act of arguing about the reality of freewill reinforces the notion even stringer in the minds of those arguing, so this to has a small bearing IMO.
In absolute terms freewill is utter chaos, insanity and is deliberately , as Wellwisher has suggested , blocked by ourselves, by choice, with the ambition to improve and manage order and avoid of chaos.
If free will is an illusion then the existence of the world's culture and society would be doubtful indeed. Humans would have extinguished themselves thousands of years ago IMO simply because if freewill is an illusion so to is responsibility and consequence, and the cost of making a decision would be zero, emotionally, and therefore psychically leading to a global society psychopaths and sociopaths.
um.. tree's need sun, tree's grow towards the sun to get more light. there is need to overcome gravity.
tree grows food, we need to food. evolution requires that we eat. there is need.
um wait..
are you saying
at some point in our evolution our needs were not provided for us causing us to seek out other means of sustenance, resulting in genetic modification (we grew arms to reach the food)
are you saying that it was an act of will which caused us to grow the arms to reach the food?
why would God create a universe where he would need to be 'supernatural' in order to interact with it?
no.. however "extension by deprivation" plays a large role in human growth no doubt about it...
Why would he create a universe to begin with? What would be his/it's motive? Impossible questions that can only resort to metaphor and poetry to find impossible answers. IMOwhy would God create a universe where he would need to be 'supernatural' in order to interact with it?
Last edited:
I posted the following in the P & M fora and am interested to see what the reaction is here in this thread.
Concerning Life existing in defiance of the laws of physics.
Concerning Life existing in defiance of the laws of physics.
you say 'no' but don't go on to explain how my analogy differs from yours.
boredom, he created us for his amusement..
(humans can do some pretty funny shit..)
when you couch your analogy in a more serious and less sarcastic light maybe I will.[humiliation point #1001234]
But no, the need to make the process of evolution, as you are referring or deferring to, exclusive to volition is nonsense.
But you already know this.. eh?
sooo what are you really trying to say?
As typical of most you start with "created universe" question then revert to a heliocentric view that he did it only to be entertained by us humans in a universe that is so vast and probably populated that the heliocentricity is totally laughable... [humiliation point #1001235]
The universe doesn't swing round humanity or didn't you know....[humiliation point #1001236]
yeah and I am just kidding as well... I kinda like taking the bad guy ultra serous routine when I feel Like it.. sort of rocks my boat...
:m:Example:
He has no need to be supernatural to interact with the universe he created... why do you think that? Do you believe in ghosts?
A non-dualist approach [Aikya]:
Why would God wish to reveal himself to that which by necessity of existential ego [thus freewill] requires that he remain hidden from egoistically blinded eyes?
God like the center of gravity is an effect with out cause. [ chuckle] He doesn't exist because he is existence.
Ok have fun guys...
This whole "free will is an illusion" debate is entirely a matter of semantics. If you define free will as some magical process that exists outside the laws of physics, then of course it doesn't exist. Your definition has rendered it impossible. Free will is simply the ability of a self aware being to evaluate the available options and make a choice according to whatever criteria he / she / it prefers. There's nothing mystical about it.
Those who advocate freewill to be an illusion do so because they think it does adhere to the laws of physics, and that it is that which makes freewill an illusion. Because if it adheres to the laws, there is no freedom.
As for your explanation of freewill, it surely begs the question of what it means to make a choice, and whether the choice, the preference, are in some way free, or not merely themselves the conclusion of a physical process that allows for no freedom.
So a matter of semantics? Perhaps.
But just bear in mind that the ones who advocate freewill to be illusory do so because they think it does adhere to the laws of physics.
For sake of arugument... say the above is true... how does that help you'r argument that free will arises from cause an effect/random events.???