The illusion of free will

[iceaura]

But that does not negate them being caused by, brought about by, the underlying activity. Remove the underlying activity and you remove the pattern. The pattern is an expression of that underlying activity. It is an interpretation of how the underlying rules and laws manifest.

So far, for the first few steps. But now add more properties of physical reality: the cell transition laws and rules are probabilities, the cell states are probabilities and can change without cause, there is no such thing as an "initial state", the game has no fixed boundaries, and there are varying densities and populations of patterns extending over its entire space.

It is "a" valid use, if you limit the term to only be applicable at the level of pattern you're looking at.
But if the patterns are not caused by the initial starting conditions and the individual elements adhering to the rules and laws of the game, what are they caused by?

In the extended arena as made more similar to the human brain in the real world, they are caused by other patterns at the appropriate levels of organization to be "causes" (the bigger game opens up the possibility of higher logical levels of pattern organization).

 

[cluelusshusbund]

It is possible to be part of a chain of causation and still be an undetermined event. I call this causation without predetermination. Take randomness for example. We definitely know the roll of the dice is caused by various events preceding it. And yet the precise outcome of those events is not really predetermined.

I dont have beliefs in predetermination (that the outcome of the dice are predetermined)... an i thank that the precise outcome of the dice roll is absolutely caused by the events precedin it... even tho some of those events could be random/not part of the causal chain... an i thank we agree that free will does not come from random causes.!!!

With our own will, we are also open to multiple probabilistic outcomes imo due to the emergent nature of the will. Every thing that happens in the brain can be linked serially in a chain of preceding causes. But because all those chains converge and loop back on themselves in the final decision process, a degree of freedom is opened up regarding the final outcome. At least that's how I see it.
I see the indeterminacy of freewill as an emergent property that arises out of the confluence of multiple chains of cause and effect. As the chains converge in one final brain state of intraneural firings, the effect of any single chain is lessened due to competing parallel chains. In this nexus of self-interacting energy, a space of multiple possible outcomes opens up and itself exerts its own influence from top to bottom. In chaotic systems this is known as a strange attractor:

You say that everthang that happens in the brain is linked by preceding causes... so why do you thank that cause an effect does not apply to a chaotic state in the brain.???

Is the influence that "itself" exerts... based on preceiding causes.???

 

[river]

Free-will is based on the strength and ability to question

Without the ability to question , there is NO free-will

 

[Magical Realist]

You say that everthang that happens in the brain is linked by preceding causes... so why do you thank that cause an effect does not apply to a chaotic state in the brain.???

Is the influence that "itself" exerts... based on preceiding causes.???

The chaotic state IS based on preceding causes, but as it evolves it becomes more sensitive to the intitial state. Suddenly you have a system that is determinate in regards to its causes, but indeterminate and unpredictable in regards to outcomes.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

The chaotic state IS based on preceding causes, but as it evolves it becomes more sensitive to the intitial state.

An while its evolving... are ther preceding causes which are making it more sensitive to the initial state.???

 

[Magical Realist]

An while its evolving... are ther preceding causes which are making it more sensitive to the initial state.???

Yes..the indeterminacy of the system itself emerges from preceding causes.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

The chaotic state IS based on preceding causes, but as it evolves it becomes more sensitive to the intitial state. Suddenly you have a system that is determinate in regards to its causes, but indeterminate and unpredictable in regards to outcomes.

An while its evolving... are ther preceding causes which are making it more sensitive to the initial state.???

Yes..the indeterminacy of the system itself emerges from preceding causes.

Sinse the whole process involves causal chains... how is free will derived from it.???

 

[river]

Sinse the whole process involves causal chains... how is free will derived from it.???

If we go back far enough , the primitive brain

Hence the start of free-will

Then we could ask , why did the primitive brain get beyond just survival at all ?

Free-will was, is an advanced thought process

Because free-will goes beyond survival

Free-will has imagination

 

[cluelusshusbund]

If we go back far enough , the primitive brain

Hence the start of free-will

Then we could ask , why did the primitive brain get beyond just survival at all ?

Free-will was, is an advanced thought process

Because free-will goes beyond survival

Free-will has imagination

I see free will as the ability to make an uninfluenced choice.!!!

 

[river]

I see free will as the ability to make an uninfluenced choice.!!!

Of course

Sometimes

 

[Sarkus]

Yes..the indeterminacy of the system itself emerges from preceding causes.

But you have yet to show how indeterminacy can lead to freewill. All you seem to do is conclude on indeterminacy and then jump from there to "thus we have freewill". Big step in the middle of all that you are missing. Care to share?

 

[Undefined]

Hi everyone.

The human imagination (as previously exampled in my earlier posts) and the ‘humor’ abstraction can see the black humor as well as the light humor in anything that the mind can conceive IN A TOTALLY UNEXPECTED way than would be expected IF the ‘prior events’ at the neuronal level actually did dictate/cause your thoughts/perspectives as claimed by some.

Once you JOKE about something, it is YOU that gives that ‘somnething’ a new twist/meaning/purpose/effect than it would have ‘straight and literal’.

Then there is the IRONY aspect. Humans have a capacity for IRONY and JUXTAPOSITION and ABSURDITY in many and varied ‘takes’ on a theme/observation/event etc which no amount of ‘prior causes’ can even begin to ‘produce’ in a deterministic way.


See? Imagination; choice of perspectives/options; humor and joking etc etc makes YOU the one that creates the ‘altered reality’ in that ‘funny world construct’ of YOURS beyond mere ‘prior causes’ determined constructs.

Go forth and LAUGH, and soon you’ll see what free will can do if you don’t smother it. Cheers!

 

[Magical Realist]

Sinse the whole process involves causal chains... how is free will derived from it.???

Because there are so many causal chains, feedback loops, and backpropagating affects that variables are introduced that open consciousness up to underdetermined outcomes. The whole becomes more than the sum of its parts, emergent properties arise that exert top down influence on the causal efficacy of the chains, and a probabilistic state is reached that is freed from predetermination. One property for example that emerges is the synchronization of neural firings. Studies shows that this property is directly correlated to conscious awareness. http://www.jneurosci.org/content/27/11/2858.longThis is an order that imposes a wave like structure on the system such that it actually reinforces itself. We have an example of this in nature in self-reinforcing waves called solitons:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyjwZ39EDmw

 

[Magical Realist]

But you have yet to show how indeterminacy can lead to freewill. All you seem to do is conclude on indeterminacy and then jump from there to "thus we have freewill". Big step in the middle of all that you are missing. Care to share?

To the extent that you deny freewill on the basis of determinacy, you assume indeterminacy as one of its necessary conditions. Thus it is when we make choices, we really are exposed to states of equally or approximately equally probable outcomes and freed from the tyranny of what just came before. I choose to raise my right hand, and do so, and then I choose to raise my left hand, and then do so. The indeterminacy of the state right before my action, of being equally likely to do either, is a precondition of freewill and choice. I really do make a choice, and that choice always assumes the possibility of doing otherwise.

 

[Sarkus]

To the extent that you deny freewill on the basis of determinacy, you assume indeterminacy as one of its necessary conditions.

No, I make no such assumption, and I do not deny freewill on the basis of determinacy, but on the basis of causation and the only uncaused events being random.
I would argue that it is irrelevant to my argument whether the universe is deterministic or indeterministic, and my own preference of view of a probabilistically determined universe is inherently indeterminate, due to the randomness within the probability functions.

So again, what is it that takes you from indeterminacy to freewill?

Thus it is when we make choices, we really are exposed to states of equally or approximately equally probable outcomes and freed from the tyranny of what just came before. I choose to raise my right hand, and do so, and then I choose to raise my left hand, and then do so. The indeterminacy of the state right before my action, of being equally likely to do either, is a precondition of freewill and choice. I really do make a choice, and that choice always assumes the possibility of doing otherwise.

And that "freewill" is, as I have said again and again, limited to what we perceive. It can say nothing further than that. It can say nothing about whether you truly are the initiator of actions, as it looks no further than our own perception.

When you say "I choose to raise my right hand"... what cause you to even think about doing that? To ask the question? What you perceive is that you initiated that thought, that cause. But did you? That is the key question that your definition of freewill does not even attempt to look at.

I don't have an issue with that, but you need to understand what such a definition limits itself to describing.

 

[Sarkus]

Hi everyone.

The human imagination (as previously exampled in my earlier posts) and the ‘humor’ abstraction can see the black humor as well as the light humor in anything that the mind can conceive IN A TOTALLY UNEXPECTED way than would be expected IF the ‘prior events’ at the neuronal level actually did dictate/cause your thoughts/perspectives as claimed by some.

Once you JOKE about something, it is YOU that gives that ‘somnething’ a new twist/meaning/purpose/effect than it would have ‘straight and literal’.

Then there is the IRONY aspect. Humans have a capacity for IRONY and JUXTAPOSITION and ABSURDITY in many and varied ‘takes’ on a theme/observation/event etc which no amount of ‘prior causes’ can even begin to ‘produce’ in a deterministic way.


See? Imagination; choice of perspectives/options; humor and joking etc etc makes YOU the one that creates the ‘altered reality’ in that ‘funny world construct’ of YOURS beyond mere ‘prior causes’ determined constructs.

Go forth and LAUGH, and soon you’ll see what free will can do if you don’t smother it. Cheers!

Again, nothing here other than a definition of freewill limiting itself to what we perceive, that can say nothing about what is truly going on.

 

[Magical Realist]

No, I make no such assumption, and I do not deny freewill on the basis of determinacy, but on the basis of causation and the only uncaused events being random.
I would argue that it is irrelevant to my argument whether the universe is deterministic or indeterministic, and my own preference of view of a probabilistically determined universe is inherently indeterminate, due to the randomness within the probability functions.

So you assume causation without predetermination just as I do and that indeterminacy is inherent in the universe? I have no problem with that.

So again, what is it that takes you from indeterminacy to freewill?

I already explained that.

And that "freewill" is, as I have said again and again, limited to what we perceive. It can say nothing further than that. It can say nothing about whether you truly are the initiator of actions, as it looks no further than our own perception.

If you have some evidence of another cause for my raising my arms other than my own decision to, then lets hear it. I'd certainly be open to some other factor if you could show it being more efficacious than my own willpower. So far I've not heard one suggestion of what it would be.

When you say "I choose to raise my right hand"... what cause you to even think about doing that? To ask the question? What you perceive is that you initiated that thought, that cause. But did you? That is the key question that your definition of freewill does not even attempt to look at.

We can do that with any cause. Say the wind knocked over a vase. But did the wind really cause the vase to fall? The wind afterall was created by certain heat differences and pressure differences in air. But what caused that? Well, the sun actually. But what caused the sun to do this? A nuclear fusion process of hydrogen and helium. And so on and so forth, reducing us to an absurdity of endless causal regressions.

 

[Sarkus]

So you assume causation without predetermination just as I do and that indeterminacy is inherent in the universe? I have no problem with that.

We agree on something??? But... that's impossible!!

I already explained that.

No, you haven't (as far as I can see). You've just said "Indeterminacy... therefore freewill".
Unless you're talking about a definition of freewill that is limited to one's conscious perception. But then I've never had an issue if that is what people define it as, as long as they understand it as such.

If you have some evidence of another cause for my raising my arms other than my own decision to, then lets hear it. I'd certainly be open to some other factor if you could show it being more efficacious than my own willpower. So far I've not heard one suggestion of what it would be.

It's not a matter of pinpointing specific causes, but of showing how everything is built upon the principle of cause and effect.
As said, from the outset, the conclusion follows from the premise (that cause and effect holds). That I can't specify a cause for a given effect is irrelevant. The alternative is that your decision to is uncaused - uncaused not only by your own thoughts, but by the subconscious causes of your thoughts.
Unless, as said, you hold your thoughts to be uncaused?
But that would go against the assumption, and also against every notion of science (that the only uncaused effects are random).

We can do that with any cause. Say the wind knocked over a vase. But did the wind really cause the vase to fall? The wind afterall was created by certain heat differences and pressure differences in air. But what caused that? Well, the sun actually. But what caused the sun to do this? A nuclear fusion process of hydrogen and helium. And so on and so forth, reducing us to an absurdity of endless causal regressions.

To consider it an absurdity is to argue from consequence. "Oh, I find the consequence absurd... it must be wrong!"
Yes, the conclusion is that it regresses to the start of time. If we were in a strictly deterministic then a re-run from t=0 would result in exactly the same as now, but in a probabilistically deterministic, or otherwise indeterministic, universe then things might play out differently.

Why do you consider this absurd, other than your own bias/personal incredulity on the matter?
If you accept the premises then this is the conclusion, as far as I have been able to fathom.
And I have yet to hear anything, from you or others, to suggest that either the assumptions are incorrect or that the assumptions can lead to a freewill that is anything other than illusory (or else defined as limited to a matter of perception).

 

[Magical Realist]

No, you haven't (as far as I can see). You've just said "Indeterminacy... therefore freewill".
Unless you're talking about a definition of freewill that is limited to one's conscious perception. But then I've never had an issue if that is what people define it as, as long as they understand it as such.

Here it is again. I'm only going to repeat it once:

Thus it is when we make choices, we really are exposed to states of equally or approximately equally probable outcomes and freed from the tyranny of what just came before. I choose to raise my right hand, and do so, and then I choose to raise my left hand, and then do so. The indeterminacy of the state right before my action, of being equally likely to do either, is a precondition of freewill and choice. I really do make a choice, and that choice always assumes the possibility of doing otherwise.

And for the record I don't rely only on freewill and consciousness just "as perceived." That's why I've gone thru the trouble of showing how chaos theory and emergence explain it as a physical process. So far you offer nothing even close to that. You just assume, as I pointed out before, the black and white dichotomy of either being caused or uncaused. Randomness or causation. That's not an argument. That's an assumption, and one which from your own theory you couldn't help making.

It's not a matter of pinpointing specific causes, but of showing how everything is built upon the principle of cause and effect.

You yourself claim the universe is inherently indeterministic. How does this jibe with your claim that everything is built on the principle of cause and effect?

As said, from the outset, the conclusion follows from the premise (that cause and effect holds).

But only probablistically as you conclude. One wouldn't hold you to anything like a "probabilistic determinism", whatever that means.

That I can't specify a cause for a given effect is irrelevant. The alternative is that your decision to is uncaused - uncaused not only by your own thoughts, but by the subconscious causes of your thoughts.

Not uncaused at all. CAUSED by my conscious decision to act in a certain way. I am iow a causal agent of my own actions. That's what my experience shows me.

Unless, as said, you hold your thoughts to be uncaused?

Anything posited to be a cause is imputed with causal efficacy in itself. Doesn't mean it isn't itself caused. It just means that causation is happening all along the way, and not just at the Big Bang. The wind truly does cause the vase to fall even as it is also caused. Once again, causation without predetermination.

But that would go against the assumption, and also against every notion of science (that the only uncaused effects are random).

But not against the inherent indeterminacy of cause and effect itself which you posit is in fact the case.

To consider it an absurdity is to argue from consequence. "Oh, I find the consequence absurd... it must be wrong!"
Yes, the conclusion is that it regresses to the start of time. If we were in a strictly deterministic then a re-run from t=0 would result in exactly the same as now, but in a probabilistically deterministic, or otherwise indeterministic, universe then things might play out differently.

Yes, I reject premises and conclusions that imply absurd scenarios that don't mesh with reality. So sue me..

Why do you consider this absurd, other than your own bias/personal incredulity on the matter?

Because you are left with a universe where effect doesn't really follow cause at all. And that would explain nothing. The billiard ball did not cause the other billiard ball to roll into the pocket. The Big Bang caused it. Ok..yeah..whatever dude. lol!

If you accept the premises then this is the conclusion, as far as I have been able to fathom.
And I have yet to hear anything, from you or others, to suggest that either the assumptions are incorrect or that the assumptions can lead to a freewill that is anything other than illusory (or else defined as limited to a matter of perception).

Your premise is flawed from the outset because there is not just this either "caused or uncaused" scenario. There is also BEING a cause. IOW, causal efficacy persists over time. That's just the way reality is. To suggest otherwise is simply..well...absurd!

 

[barcelonic]

When i decide to do something it doesn't seem to me as though I do not have free will. Same with Sarkus.

Every word of what we've written here is based from what our minds are able to deduce about all the various facts we have collated from various ideas, famous thinkers, statistics etc..

I mention this again because it honestly seems as though nobody who disagrees with Sarkus & I is willing to address this point. On one side of this debate we have people who are not using their own sensory experience to try to validate a point about the objective truths of reality, and on the other side we have people who are.

Our starting point for general thought is the same: we are all, of course, capable of thinking subjectively. This is a fact. So Sarkus, myself and several others here are going from A (subjective) to B (objective).

If a car travels from A to B then the driver obviously knows about A and knows about B. But if the car never leaves A then the driver of that car doesn't even know what B looks like. And that is what we seem to have here: we have drivers who don't know what B looks like and are therefore unable and unwilling to discuss or even approach discussions about B.

I would like to see a fair number of posts from the other side of the debate which do NOT include a single argument made from A alone.


PS. Sarkus sorry to namedrop you so much I just can't be bothered to find the names of the other 'B tourists' among us.