but all the ologies are abstact thought
in the sence that they are all above instinct alone
Why free will is impossible
- Thread starter litewave
- Start date
but all the ologies are abstact thought
in the sence that they are all above instinct alone
that is what I am saying . They are not ! They are part of human instinct . Killing a Mammoth is the same abstract thought . It is the humans round table. It is just more complex . More complex thinking does not mean it is not instinct to think in more complex ways . It is what we evolved to at this moment in time . It was our natural selection . O.K. consider this " What ever a human thinks and does is what humans do as a species. They are animals of the earth and humans do human things . There nature is the things they do . If you were not human you would see this better . You would not have such a bias view . It would be more like looking at ants and thinking they have free will cause they commune and build shelters . Go where they want to go .
How do you rise above being what we do . How do we rise above our nature ? We fight for freedom ! Can we be free ? No it is a moving target . A never ending battle . Why would that be ? cause there is always a freer state of being . Not only that but we would still be doing the things that we evolved to do by natural progression. Not to say that once in a while we get a Jonathon Livingston Sea Gull type that advances the world by leaps and bounds . That happens yet was it by free will or was it still natural progression that lead the individual to succeed by the nature of humans to strive.
your talking about survival here , I'm not
[
I disagree
we rise to being above instinct by awarness and thought and time really , to add
moments of contemplation about , things
No it doesn't ignore it. It just understands the act of "taking a moment" to be as "forced" as everything else.
Not of erroneous perception but of conscious perception, rather than looking at the underlying nature that seems to logically follow from the scenario that was set up.
No they're not.
Is there a reason you're trying to add flames to this thread?
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
But again, that is just begging the question. Whether we can "decide" or "choose" is the point we are discussing, so simply asserting that we can in fact decide a course or choose one thing over another is simply circular.
Perhaps we can go at it this way. If you are right and we do have free will, then it should be the case that, if we assume the opposite, we will run into some contradiction. Other than there being a persistent illusion of choice lodged in our brains to explain (which can in fact be explained/*), I can't think of anything in this hypothetical world that would necessarily be different than this real one we inhabit.
-----
/* As I said before when we "take a moment and choose" what we may really be doing is taking a moment to run the information we have through a neural "program" which then tells us what we are going to do...without our having any faculty that allows us to defy that programmed response. What we imagine to be "other choices we might have made" might be other options that that this program considered and rejected, yet which might have been accepted if the information at hand had been slightly different. Or it might be that, like a chess computer, this program arrives at a result by serially testing various alternatives and their expected outcomes, thus making it seem like we "chose" to reject these alternatives, rather than being complex automata that we are in this view.
The big difference between us and a chess computer isn't free will, it's that we reflect back on the results of the program, and use feedback from that to improve the program for the next time it is needed (by improving our ability to set accurate expectations, most likely).
-----
Nor can I find anything in the hypothetical world you describe that is necessarily inconsistent with reality. (Though I can imagine an omniscient being who nonetheless lacks free will, I can also imagine such a being having it.)
Last edited:
what?
you are still holding this perception, conscious or otherwise, to be wrong, correct?
what is this "underlying nature" refrain of yours?
/mystified
I am not holding the perception to be wrong, per se, merely illusory.
Just as evidence is not wrong but one's interpretation of that evidence can be.
For example, a mirage is not "wrong"... it remains what it is... a mirage.
It is only when one claims the mirage to be more than what it is... to be the actual thing it is perceived to be (such as water on the road, for example)... that one could consider not the thing itself to be wrong but the interpretation.
As for what the "underlying nature" refrain of mine is... I guess you could just read the thread?
But on the assumption that you won't: RoG's (and others') arguments that "free-will" exists stem from their conscious perception of activity that they define as free-will: the consciousness perceives "choice" to be a conscious activity of selection between alternatives, for example.
But starting from this position - as they do despite protestation to the contrary by some - they fail to even consider the nature of interactions between the underlying microcosm... between molecules, atoms, quarks etc, where activity is not "free" but seemingly either determined, or random (e.g. non-caused).
Furthermore Regular0ldguy set up a scenario of "perfect causation" - i.e. every event is caused... no non-caused events... and where there is no randomness. He holds that free-will exists within this scenario as more than just an illusion of our consciousness.
Unfortunately his only arguments toward this end stem from the point of view of conscious perception of the activity (e.g. the "I can reflect and choose, therefore free-will exists"). It can thus speak nothing about the underlying nature of the activity.
And yet he uses these arguments to try to support the position that free-will is more than merely a conscious perception.
Hope that sufficiently summarises the current position for you.
Perhaps some people contributing aren't really considering the problem.
What is the "problem"? Is it that we all have an innate sense of being able to "change the world", in some small way, and that this demonstrates freedom of action, and hence of choice? But we can't, on analysis, show that there is any real "choice"?
Then quantum events appear to depend on this axiom of there being a choice to make, so what's really up with that? Does omniscience deal with this, since an omniscient being wouldn't need to make any choices (assuming they couldn't choose to ignore information).
What does it really mean to be conscious? Do we really need to be ignorant of most "information" in order to make decisions, or predict anything?
What is the "problem"? Is it that we all have an innate sense of being able to "change the world", in some small way, and that this demonstrates freedom of action, and hence of choice? But we can't, on analysis, show that there is any real "choice"?
Then quantum events appear to depend on this axiom of there being a choice to make, so what's really up with that? Does omniscience deal with this, since an omniscient being wouldn't need to make any choices (assuming they couldn't choose to ignore information).
What does it really mean to be conscious? Do we really need to be ignorant of most "information" in order to make decisions, or predict anything?
Whenever you say all of anything is really just one thing, you ought to be suspicious about erasing the meanings of both the concept you claim to be universal and its opposite.
Everything is an instinct? I think you just shifted the meaning of instinct dramatically and are misapplying it to behavior which is clearly not instinctual.
i think some here are comfortable with dismissing your professed agency as an instance of erroneous perception.
ja
they are calling you stupid
I've been getting that a lot around here.
And a lot of repetition.If you have to learn a behavior, that means it ISN'T an instinct.
ahh
its like gazing at a star in the sky and assuming it to be still there when in fact it could have gone supernova millions of years ago and is but a shell of its former self?
and that these erroneous presumptions are in the same category as ascribing free agency to mental or physical events assumed to be initiated by said agency?
it is then, because we lack the necessary degree of introspection to identify all possible priors that would suffice as an causal explanation, an understanding that our knowledge of all possible factors that can influence us is inadequate and incomplete; we are compelled to maintain that any ascription of free will to these events is necessarily illusory?
in fact, any claim of free agency can be safely dismissed due to these concerns. ja?
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
Actually, I am on the fence over whether we have free will or not. More to the point, I simply acknowledge that we do not know one way or the other. That said, it seems clear that we have the perception that we make choices. If there is no free will, then one has to explain the reason it feels like we have a faculty allowing for choice. Hypothetically there are any number of reasons that could be, and I was referencing one that I am not sure I could distinguish from a true ability to choose.
Certainly if it were proven that the perception of "choice" were an illusion, that would be some evidence there is no free will (though it is not clear how we could "prove" choices are never made freely). In fact I suspect we do have free will, but that the universe is not truly deterministic, but only very roughly deterministic. I also suspect that eventually some physical basis for free will will be uncovered in the brain, though at present there is nothing that backs up that intuition.
I am not, however, sanguine enough to believe there will be any new and substantial discoveries on that point in our lifetimes (though I hope otherwise).
Until then man as free agent vs. man as organic robot remains a moot question.
Sadly, even if true, it can probably never be proven that we *lack* free will, because it requires proving a negative. Even if the workings of the brain are ever understood in full and the organ is shown to be wholly subject in every way to deterministic processes, believers would simply say the locus of free will exist externally from the brain (in a "soul." "mind" or other metaphysical construct).
Last edited:
But it is . You just can't see it . You are disconnected from the information flow of nature. I could be crazy , but I am not . Course I could be wrong and really crazy . I see it . I see the language that governs . It is hard to look at . It is all instinct . Reaction before preponderance. Everyone does it . You can't find someone who does not do it . It is the way your lip curls, the way your foot taps. The way you hold your hand , Touch your neck . All those things and much more telegraph intent before you react , or as you react , or better yet interact . People don't realize this trading of information is going on with out conscience awareness . I wish I didn't see it . I did and buddy you are not free like you think . No one is . It is all just an intricate dance of interaction . Like birds at mating season . This all takes place before you open your mouth and when you do open your mouth the gesturing is way a head of the stuff coming out . It is freaky as hell and when you start to see it too you are going to freak . I hope the day comes when lots of people can see it ., It will change everything you think . You will know we are still animals all and all and instinct govern our every move . My dog ponders before he barks at squirrels. Yeah I might have changed the definition all right . If so it needed changing cause humans are not different than the animals of the forest in regards to instinct. Only your conscience awareness of it is . It is the Illusion part of it all . Not really that much of an illusion as much as it is an unawareness of the surroundings . Or it could be I am suffering the first on slots of schizophrenia. Na couldn't be . I did see something recently how the distortion of time in schizophrenia can lead a person what facts come first and in this it plays tricks on the mind making the person think they see the future first , but really they are just receiving information out of sequence from when they actually happen . I don't think that is me , but if it was would I know ?
O.K. by the language of gesturing that pre communicates conveyance of information moves faster than vocalized words . It is based in instinct and it still governs over conscience thought . It is akin to a ball flying at your face and you see it coming from a peripheral view. Now some of you might just let it hit you in the face aye , or would you at least flinch . Could you stop your self from flinching ?
O.K. the time dilation when your faced with trauma . I propose that to be the true instinct of humans. The killer instinct of living in the wild . Is it a heightened awareness of surroundings . Can you anticipate at a faster rate there by making time seem to slow down. I propose that to be that natural state of humans and our judgment has been clouded by knowledge, or the learned behavior except I believe that instinct is still always going on , but more as an involuntary act . It is brought to the surface when we are in trauma type situations . If you could be in this state consciously for any length of time you might find that everyone lives in this state all the time and that my friend is the instinct of humans I am talking about. Probably left over from when we needed to be aware of some other animal eating us . Now we use it as a defense mechanism from each other . Concrete jungles replaced the jungles of the wilderness . I believe we have become deadened to the sensation as we have become lackadaisical to our awareness of the instinctual nature of our existence. Not as heightened as when we were being chased by lions and tigers and bears . So to me it is a loss of function. A loss of awareness . Now I believe we are on the threshold of reconnection with instinct and the human mind will advance from reintroduction to the heightened awareness . I think the disasters that are going on are forcing people to be more aware or have this heightened awareness . The bombardment of information I believe is moving us closer to it too . I think it is a matter of time before more people can read the language of Instinct like I am talking about . There might be many that already do . I think good serial killers always could. Child molesters that lure there prey too . They use the ability for there own selfish satisfaction.
No that means it is the instinct of a human . Babies start copying right out the gate before they have been taught to copy . That is an instinct. Which is no different than a baby bird eating a worm when the mother bird brings it to the nest
Lets say I am an Alien from space and I am 100 times more advanced than humans . I am looking down on human activities . Now put your self in that roll . Do you see people having free will or do you see them doing pretty much the same thing thinking . Saying something like God those humans are so repetitive . Think they will ever be free of there conditioning . Maybe in a 1000 years or so if they make it past there dark ages of the information age . Now how bout the alien that is 100 times more advanced than the first alien we mentioned ( You ) now move your self to that next alien . Are you going to think the same thing about that alien as they did about humans ? It would be just like you looking at the behavior of Monkeys . Do Monkeys have free will ? Do butterflies have free will ? Do birds that fly south for the winter have free will ? If not why would you have it over the other animals of the earth . I say no no no it is only the human mind from the human perspective that tells you you do
I've been getting that a lot around here.
I don't think you are stupid beyond being human . In fact quite intelligent for a human . You make a pretty good argument too and some of your political stances are extremely intelligent in my opinion . But with all that you are still a human and humans in general are stupid . Me to if that makes you feel any better about it . We are kind of slow to change things and it makes Me wonder about future adaptability to our environment.
Yes, I think this is Sarkus' contention.