What is free will?

[iceaura]

Yet you (and I guess by extension JamesR) are the only one who ever mentions the supernatural

No. I am the only one who calls it by its name, is all. You mention it repeatedly - but you use euphemisms, like "actual" and "genuine". Baldee even assumes it as a premise in his "argument", while denying he is making it.

But what you are analysing is a sense of free will that is judged only by the appearance and sensation of having genuine alternatives.

Try dropping those subjective and question-begging words you use to hide the physical situation from yourself - "genuine", "actual" - and pay attention to the observations of scientific research and otherwise rigorous analysis.
Derive your notion of "genuine" and "actual" from observation and reasoning, not assumption.

Everything is an appearance, of course, if we are to observe it, but in most cases the appearance is backed up by our understanding and evidence of what is really going on.

Yep. And so it is. Except you refuse to understand what is going on, or acknowledge the evidence, so there is no "our".

The difference between the living and dead are reasonably well understood, and none of the processes involved go contrary to that understanding.

The degrees of freedom of action involved are not well understood - you haven't even acknowledged their existence.

So a subjective view that there is more than one, even though in a deterministic system there can not be mor.

That is false. In a deterministic system there can be many, as anyone who wishes to obtain a passing grade in an elementary statistical analysis course is quick to learn.

It's actually very close to rocket science - both are deterministic systems where for each input there is just one predetermined output

The matter at hand is the process of that determination. It involves a decision by a decisionmaker, a choice among alternatives.

Free will, on the other hand, "the ability to select from among alternatives", goes very much contrary to the underlying nature of the processes involved.

Freedom of will does not. We observe a wide range of degrees of freedom in the decisions of human beings and the actions of the human will, in complete accordance with the underlying nature of of the processes involved.
The relevance of that to "free will" remains to be considered - first we have to get you guys to drop the supernatural assumption.

But what you are analysing is a sense of free will that is judged only by the appearance and sensation of having genuine alternatives.

No "sense of free will" is involved. No "sensations" are involved. We are analyzing the observation of the process of a human decision being made, with special attention to the degrees of freedom available to the decisionmaker and their actions - which includes the alternatives being decided among, of course.
You can't leave them out, after all - that would screw up your analysis.

And given that I haven't once assumed the supernatural,

You have, in almost every post you make here - including this latest.

We have a different notion of what free will is to you.

Yes. You have a supernatural one.

You can discuss what you want. - -

Not here with you guys, I can't. I've tried - read earlier posts, earlier threads, for multiple attempts and invitations.

Still open, btw. Any time.

 

[iceaura]

The difference between alive and dead is trivial, according to Tegmark. He posits that there is no difference in constituent parts between alive and dead. The difference is in their arrangement, the patterns formed by the parts.

The idea that some things are "constituent parts" and other things are "patterns" is a fundamental error. All of these things are patterns, all the patterns are constituent parts - substrate - of larger or "higher level" patterns. Atoms are patterns of quarks, and constituent parts of molecules, for example.

And the idea that patterns and arrangements are trivial is just plain stupid.

 

[Quantum Quack]

No. I am the only one who calls it by its name, is all. You mention it repeatedly - but you use euphemisms, like "actual" and "genuine". Baldee even assumes it as a premise in his "argument", while denying he is making it.

well said....

The idea that some things are "constituent parts" and other things are "patterns" is a fundamental error. All of these things are patterns, all the patterns are constituent parts - substrate - of larger or "higher level" patterns. Atoms are patterns of quarks, and constituent parts of molecules, for example.

And the idea that patterns and arrangements are trivial is just plain stupid.

in fact the only reason we notice things as significant is because we discern patterns, so one feeds the the other in a way similar to confirmation bias. Look for a pattern and you will see it.

 

[Quantum Quack]

So you're not going to answer then?
And it really is just personal incredulity?
Okay.

But I did...unfortunately it is beyond your capacity to understand at this time. Perhaps after a journey of self discovery you might start to see it all more clearly?

But then again perhaps your deterministic universe wont let you?

 

[Write4U]

The idea that some things are "constituent parts" and other things are "patterns" is a fundamental error. All of these things are patterns, all the patterns are constituent parts - substrate - of larger or "higher level" patterns. Atoms are patterns of quarks, and constituent parts of molecules, for example.

And the idea that patterns and arrangements are trivial is just plain stupid.

No, that is not what I wrote. Read again.

The (physical) difference between alive and dead is trivial, according to Tegmark. He posits that there is no difference in constituent parts between an alive body and a dead body.
The difference is in the arrangements, the patterns formed by the parts.[/quote]
Parts, in this instance, meaning atoms and molecules.
Life has no meta-physical properties of its own, it is a result of a sets of atoms and molecules arranged in a specific (dynamic) pattern.

 

[Quantum Quack]

speaking of patterns....!

please explain using the scientific method...

Life has no physical properties of its own, it is a result of a sets of atoms and molecules arranged in a specific (dynamic) pattern.

so ... you claim to have discovered the holy grail of what life is eh?

 

[Write4U]

W4U said,
Life has no physical properties of its own, it is a result of a sets of atoms and molecules arranged in a specific (dynamic) pattern.

so ... you claim to have discovered the holy grail of what life is eh?

No, Tegmark does, and it sounds eminently reasonable to me. I agree with his perspective.

The more I learn, the more mathematical it all seems to me. And I am not alone in this.

 

[iceaura]

No, that is not what I wrote. Read again.

That is what you wrote - attributing it to Tegmark.

The (physical) difference between alive and dead is trivial, according to Tegmark. He posits that there is no difference in constituent parts between an alive body and a dead body.

That's what's stupid. The physical difference between different arrangements and patterns built on substrates is central - nothing is less trivial.

Life has no meta-physical properties of its own, it is a result of a sets of atoms and molecules arranged in a specific (dynamic) pattern.

A self contradiction. Different arrangements and dynamic patterns have different metaphyisical properties.

 

[Write4U]

That is what you wrote - attributing it to Tegmark.

I wrote "the difference" between two states is trivial at a physical particle level, the patterns, not at the dynamic level.
I provided a link to the Tegmark lecture. Did I contradict Tegmark? Did you see the comparison between a dead beetle and a live beetle? Physically there is no difference in the mass of the particles which make up a beetle. It's the patterns the particles are arranged in that is non-trivially different.

That's what's stupid. The physical difference between different arrangements and patterns built on substrates is central - nothing is less trivial.

Where did I say substrate???? That's your gratuitous contribution to my posit.

A self contradiction. Different arrangements and dynamic patterns have different metaphyisical properties.

No they don't. They have different physical properties derived only from different patterns of the same constituent particles (mass).
No spooky stuff of any kind.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I wrote "the difference" between two states is trivial at a physical particle level, the patterns, not at the dynamic level.
I provided a link to the Tegmark lecture. Did I contradict Tegmark? Did you see the comparison between a dead beetle and a live beetle? Physically there is no difference in the mass of the particles which make up a beetle. It's the patterns the particles are arranged in that is non-trivially different.
Where did I say substrate???? That's your gratuitous contribution to my posit.
No they don't. They have different physical properties derived from different patterns of the same constituent particles (mass).
No spooky stuff of any kind.

If some thing dies then of course the patterns will change. A no brainer. But how does this expose the nature of life and death..?.. it doesn't.
That is also obvious...

 

[Write4U]

If some thing dies then of course the patterns will change. A no brainer.

Well, it isn't complicated, communication is, sometimes.
Sorry, if that is confusing. I'm always happy to explain why I used a particular phrase or term.

But how does this expose the nature of life and death..?.. it doesn't. That is also obvious...

It exposes the fact that life is particles arranged in a specific way, which allows for a dynamic environment and life.

The same particles arranged in a different pattern are no longer able to function dynamically and the host dies.
i.e. Life and death depend on the functional patterns formed by the constituent particles.

Note: Not all the constituent particles are human. About 90% of the bio-mass of a human organism is bacterial. They create their own patterns. If something goes wrong there the host gets sick.

 

[Michael 345]

The (physical) difference between alive and dead is trivial, according to Tegmark. He posits that there is no difference in constituent parts between an alive body and a dead body.

Try telling that the the dead and buried

Basic difference

ALIVE people - their constituent stuff is engaged in a activity called LIFE (a PROCESS)

DEAD people - same constituent stuff but NOT engaged in a activity called LIFE (a PROCESS)

Sure trivial in a constituent stuff aspect

Not so trivial activity wise

 

[Quantum Quack]

Well, it isn't complicated, communication is, sometimes.
Sorry, if that is confusing. I'm always happy to explain why I used a particular phrase or term.

It exposes the fact that life is particles arranged in a specific way, which allows for a dynamic environment and life.

The same particles arranged in a different pattern are no longer able to function dynamically and the host dies.
i.e. Life and death depend on the functional patterns formed by the constituent particles.

Note: Not all the constituent particles are human. About 90% of the bio-mass of a human organism is bacterial. They create their own patterns. If something goes wrong there the host gets sick.

but that doesn't tell us about life except that when alive patterns are different, like observing the difference to a living organism and one that is decomposing.
How does the patterns indicate how life manifests? It doesn't.
Of course the patterns will change as the body decomposes....

 

[Write4U]

Not so trivial activity wise

Oh i agree absolutely.
Note that I qualified only the little difference in bio-mass of a living and a dead organism. Life is not a thing. It is a state of being.

but that doesn't tell us about life except that when alive patterns are different, like observing the difference to a living organism and one that is decomposing.
How does the patterns indicate how life manifests? It doesn't.
Of course the patterns will change as the body decomposes....

We're only beginning to explore this realm. But we are making enormous strides.

I think I've laid out a fairly comprehensive overview of the state of science in the area of nano-technology.

 

[Michael 345]

Life is not a thing. It is a state of being.

It is a PROCESS

 

[Sarkus]

No. I am the only one who calls it by its name, is all. You mention it repeatedly - but you use euphemisms, like "actual" and "genuine". Baldee even assumes it as a premise in his "argument", while denying he is making it.

They're not euphemisms at all, but rather accurate descriptions. Calling "supernatural" something that one concludes does not exist is simply dishonest on your part. Calling it an assumption, as you continually do, is simply trolling on your part.
I get it, I really do: you want our free will to be the conscious selection between genuine alternatives. Unfortunately every example you give, every argument you put forward, doesn't even get close to showing it. They at best show how things appear, and you're content with that. I get it.

Try dropping those subjective and question-begging words you use to hide the physical situation from yourself - "genuine", "actual" - and pay attention to the observations of scientific research and otherwise rigorous analysis.

I'm not the one hiding the physical situation, iceaura. You hide behind complexity, logical levels, etc without ever looking at the process itself. You look at the television picture without realising that it is just a series of coloured panels. The only freedom you can come up with is, to use Baldeee's description, trivial. Yet look at the actual process that is in operation, not just at how it appears, and you can see that there is no real freedom. It doesn't exist. That is the conclusion. Not an assumption, but the conclusion. Unless you think you're assuming Socrates to be mortal from the get go as well?

Derive your notion of "genuine" and "actual" from observation and reasoning, not assumption.

It is from reasoning, and there is no assumption, that is what being a conclusion means.
One starts with the premises: deterministic universe, and then explore what that means in reality (e.g. predetermination) and conclude that there is no freedom (other than the trivial kind) to be had.
Your only rebuttal, fallacious as it is, seems to be to claim that I'm assuming that freedom is supernatural. For the last time: no, I'm concluding it doesn't exist. Your inability to see the difference is why I will be following Baldeee's example after I have finished this post, and putting you on ignore.

Yep. And so it is. Except you refuse to understand what is going on, or acknowledge the evidence, so there is no "our".

No, it is not backed by what we logically understand of the process. The appearance is of an ability to choose from between genuine alternatives, but the logic from the assumption of determinism says otherwise. That logic concludes that everything is predetermined, and the only freedom is of trivial kinds.

The degrees of freedom of action involved are not well understood - you haven't even acknowledged their existence.

I can add failing to comprehend what people post to the list of reasons to put you on ignore. If you think reference to floating bricks, to Teslas in space, to trivial kinds of freedom is to not acknowledge them, to different inputs leading to different outputs is not acknowledging them.... Hey ho.

That is false. In a deterministic system there can be many, as anyone who wishes to obtain a passing grade in an elementary statistical analysis course is quick to learn.

No, for each process there is a single input. Sure, you can rerun the process again with a different input, but it again has a single input. And each input results in a predetermined output. Yes, the results of different inputs can be different, but that is a trivial notion. Thermostats attest to that.

The matter at hand is the process of that determination. It involves a decision by a decisionmaker, a choice among alternatives.

It involves a process of concluding from between multiple imagined alternatives, yes. The imagined alternatives it comes up with are predetermined. The input to the system is predetermined. The imagined alternative it concludes on is predetermined. If the input and thus the output are predetermined, where is there a non-trivial freedom?

Freedom of will does not.

But it does, at least if we're considering non-trivial notions of what it means to be free... i.e. notions that in principle can not be demonstrated by a thermostat.

We observe a wide range of degrees of freedom in the decisions of human beings and the actions of the human will, in complete accordance with the underlying nature of of the processes involved.

Yes, more than we see in a thermostat, but of the same trivial variety.

The relevance of that to "free will" remains to be considered - first we have to get you guys to drop the supernatural assumption.

There's no such thing to drop. If you instead ask us to drop the conclusion that free will doesn't exist, and to focus on the type of free will that even we accept exists (as a process) and is (trivially) free, then that would at least be an honest request on your part. Because I don't believe that you genuinely can't/don't recognise the difference between conclusion and assumption.

No "sense of free will" is involved. No "sensations" are involved.

Oh, but they are, because you are trying to distinguish this free will from something that a thermostat might exhibit, albeit with less complexity. If what we feel and sense about what we're doing, if being conscious is not involved (because that's what those things amount to), then you have relegated every example you come up with to a thermostat. And it's "free will" to turn on and off.

We are analyzing the observation of the process of a human decision being made...

But, from what you've just said, with no actual sensation or feeling of making a choice? So just a reaction then? Instinct?
Seriously, when was the last time you made a choice and wasn't conscious of it, or didn't have a sense of being able to choose?

with special attention to the degrees of freedom available to the decisionmaker and their actions - which includes the alternatives being decided among, of course.

Yes, I'm well aware that you're only interested in the trivial notion of degrees of freedom, plus your inability (or unwilling) to differentiate between genuine alternatives and merely imagined ones.

You can't leave them out, after all - that would screw up your analysis.

I don't need to leave them out, I just need to understand them for what they are. Something you don't seem capable of.

You have, in almost every post you make here - including this latest.

Given your inability to distinguish conclusion from assumption, I'm sure you believe what you say.

Yes. You have a supernatural one.

No, I have a notion that I conclude doesn't exist. Your desire to dress it up as supernatural, and as an assumption, is sad.

Not here with you guys, I can't. I've tried - read earlier posts, earlier threads, for multiple attempts and invitations.

Still open, btw. Any time.

All you've done is post to criticise the incompatibilist position, so I have no sympathy for you at all. Ever tried ignoring posts that don't discuss what you want to discuss? Baldeee stated up front in this thread that he wasn't interested in what he sees as a trivial notion of "free". Since then he has been simply replying to criticisms of his view, however poorly argued those criticisms have been.
Do you feel compelled to similarly criticise the incompatibilist position rather than discuss what you seem to want to?
If so, that's rather sad, isn't it?

 

[Write4U]

It is a PROCESS

A living state is a dynamic process (10%). A dead state is a partially dynamic process (90%)

It is a PROCESS

A process is also a dynamic state of being, no?

 

[Baldeee]

But I did...unfortunately it is beyond your capacity to understand at this time. Perhaps after a journey of self discovery you might start to see it all more clearly?

But then again perhaps your deterministic universe wont let you?

Ah yes, the strategy of talking nonsense (in this case alluding to your irrelevant notion of infinite reduction to zero, which per your own admission means that the thing doesn't exist), and then trying to claim it is beyond the other's understanding.
Sometimes a spade really is just a spade.

 

[Michael 345]

A living state is a dynamic process (10%). A dead state is a partially dynamic process (90%)

Don't know where those %'s come from

A bun cooking in the oven, the cooking PROCESS is 100%
Take it out and as it cools the cooking process slows and stops 0% process

A dying person has various systems stop (cooling down) until enough stop and 0% process happening

Maybe a few bacteria munching away but stretching it a bit to say you still part alive

A process is also a dynamic state of being, no?

Not the terminology I would use

A lot of processes have nothing to do with being

 

[Michael 345]

Sometimes a spade really is just a spade.

Unless it's a shovel in disguise