Why free will is impossible

[wynn]

Clearly that is confusing levels of concepts.)

Interestingly, we tend to think of all statements within a system to be equal; so for a system to be deemed consistent, no two statements must be in conflict.

But in other systems of philosophy (namely the Eastern ones), statements are organized by hierarchy. It can happen that two statements are in conflict, but as long as they are on different levels of the hierarchy, the conflict isn't seen as a problem.

(Sarkus seems to be taking this second approach.)

 

[Sarkus]

If a person believes that ultimately, "they" don't really exist as persons, this will affect how they think, feel, speak and go about their daily lives.

It has an influence whether it is true or not... my point being that the influence it might have has no bearing on its validity or accuracy or otherwise.
Furthermore one can not act against their own consciousness... one can not choose to be unconscious yet still act.

I understand that (we've been over this before), but I think that aside from armchair philosophers, people generally cannot be functional with that kind of mental gymnastics.

Irrelevant - they will function according to their perception. They can do no else. Unfortunately we can not perceive ourselves as anything but having a sense of "I" nor with having no "free-will". This is irrespective of the underlying nature.

One cannot say "Ultimately, 'I' don't really exist, 'I' am merely a mirage" and then go about their daily life as if nothing happened.

How many times do I need to say this: I am NOT saying that these things do not exist... I AM saying that they DO exist, but at a level of conscious perception. "I" has no meaning beneath that, and is thus illusory with regard the underlying nature.
You are confusing "illusory" with "does not exist"... rather than "exists but not as perceived".

 

[Sarkus]

Of course we can. When I understand what it is, I can see the clouds reflecting on the air layers.

The analogy isn't perfect, I admit. But if you could start seeing equivalent levels of detail within the activity of your own consciousness, or your own free-will, then perhaps your point would hold.

Perception is active, not passive. Our brains postulate concepts to explain what we see. Sometimes we are wrong, but we can usually test our perceptions to verify our postulations.

We can, but when the "perception" in question is being used to test itself... :shrug:

Why do you think reflection or consciousness is something I can't examine?

You can try to examine it... people are and do. But understanding it won't alter the way we consciously perceive it... because we are perceiving it with that very same consciousness.
We are trapped in the illusion.

 

[Sarkus]

Those who minimize the importance of morality are ... bound to waste their time, to say the least.

Wow, do you create strawmen or what!!
Who has said anything about minimising the importance of morality?

Science and logic are themselves outside issues of morals... the use of science not so, admittedly.

But whether a logical conclusion is moral or immoral has no bearing on its logic, and I'm sure objects still fall under the influence gravity whether deemed moral or not.

 

[Sarkus]

But in other systems of philosophy (namely the Eastern ones), statements are organized by hierarchy. It can happen that two statements are in conflict, but as long as they are on different levels of the hierarchy, the conflict isn't seen as a problem.

(Sarkus seems to be taking this second approach.)

Well, he isn't, as I see no conflict... the underlying nature (of R0g's scenario) does not allow for uncaused or non-random interactions/events, which leads to the conclusion that our perception of free-will is illusory but one that we can not consciously break free from. Wow - no conflict.

Others see conflict... as they see "free-will" as more than just a conscious perception yet seem unable to reconcile this with there being no uncaused nor random interactions/events.
If they feel they can reconcile it then we have yet to see it here.

 

[arfa brane]

Ok: why are we conscious?

huh?
We know today that brains mostly function at an unconscious level; we know that human consciousness is "most likely" a function of the cerebral cortex.

Why, in other words, has consciousness (self awareness) evolved, and what advantage does it confer over organisms that don't have it?
What do "unconscious" animals have, in that case?

Does consciousness only confer a sense of "cause and effect", whereas unconsciousness can only "process" events, but not connect them logically?

Is consciousness necessary to have a sense of personal history, and the flow of time, as say, "events in a string", where the "strings" are artifacts of consciousness?
Does the "stringing" of events help us to predict future events, and is that the only advantage to having evolved consciousness?

 

[Pandaemoni]

Aren't we well aware of what causes us to do things? How is that fooling us?

It is demonstrably true that we are not always aware of the drives that influence our actions. Separated-twin studies have demonstrated that there is a genetic underpinning for many behaviors traditionally often thought to be engendered by familial environment (see Bryan Caplan's book, "Selfish Reasons to Have Kids"). We can't even know that our memories are accurate, as per:

http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2011/05/23/advertising-can-warp-your-memory

How can anyone really say they truly know why they desire to do or have things? Do you know in exacting detail why you might want pizza on Tuesday, but steak on Wednesday?

As per the twin studies though, unless you know every detail of you genetic predispositions, then it is definitely impossible for you to know every factor that causes you to act in the way you do...and even if you were aware of them generally, you'd need to know when different factors were influencing each articular action you take.

I am skeptical that the human mind is sophisticated enough to fully know every factor that bears on the actions we take. There are limits on the amount of information we can process and they are surprisingly small. Marketers have known for a while that you never want to confront shoppers with more too many alternatives, because--with all the myriad factors in play differentiating one product from another--it will drive some away and the rest (I think the majority, but that is debated) tend to either "satisfice" and select the first option that meets certain arbitrarily set minimum standards or compare differing products on one or two arbitrarily selected important qualities, treating other qualities as if they were not important (even if they are). But the point is, while these strategies are efficient (and therefore understandable), people d them without being aware they are doing them.

There was an experiment by Sheena Iyengar, for example in which she set up two displays of jam in stores. One had few options, the other had many. She fund that fewer people bought jam when more options were offered...but no one who walked away from the large display reported that the number of options had driven them away (nor did jam buyers from the smaller display report that the number of options had any effect on them). The number of alternatives was one causal factor in their "decision", even though they were not aware of the influence.

 

[Regular0ldguy]

The analogy isn't perfect, I admit. But if you could start seeing equivalent levels of detail within the activity of your own consciousness, or your own free-will, then perhaps your point would hold.

We can, but when the "perception" in question is being used to test itself... :shrug:

You can try to examine it... people are and do. But understanding it won't alter the way we consciously perceive it... because we are perceiving it with that very same consciousness.
We are trapped in the illusion.

What allows you to do this is time. It's like working on your golf swing. You do it, and feel it and watch the outcome, and analyze what you might want to change to get a different result. No illusion. You just watch it work, and if you like the outcome, leave it, but if you don't, you can analyze it and discuss it with others and work on it. All your control doesn't have to be simultaneous. You can work on it (everything but suicide or having a kid).

 

[Sarkus]

What allows you to do this is time. It's like working on your golf swing. You do it, and feel it and watch the outcome, and analyze what you might want to change to get a different result. No illusion. You just watch it work, and if you like the outcome, leave it, but if you don't, you can analyze it and discuss it with others and work on it. All your control doesn't have to be simultaneous. You can work on it (everything but suicide or having a kid).

I fail to see how this has any bearing on what I wrote.
Time allows us to do what?
You do realise that each passing moment is an effect of the previous one, and the cause of the next? So all time does is change which causes are the influence / compulsion.
So I see no relevance at all in what you have written with what is being discussed.
Perhaps you can explain?

 

[Regular0ldguy]

I have. You see the snake coming, and before it gets too close, you decide whether to stab it, jump, let it reach you, etc.

The snake is the causal chain. Magic doesn't jump between you and the snake to take over. You have time to react if you know how things work. We aren't clocks.

 

[arfa brane]

I have. You see the snake coming, and before it gets too close, you decide whether to stab it, jump, let it reach you, etc.

How does that prove or disprove, or even address the question of, whether we have free will?

The snake is the causal chain. Magic doesn't jump between you and the snake to take over. You have time to react if you know how things work. We aren't clocks.

The snake is only part of the 'entire' causal chain, which includes you and your actions.

We are clocks, if we weren't we wouldn't have any sense of time. Not very 'good' clocks, but good enough to survive as a species for say, a few hundred thousand years so far.
You have all kinds of timers inside your brain--what would you call a mechanism like that?

 

[wynn]

I think they should start producing a new line of armchairs: with white padding. You know, to mix metaphors and all that ...

 

[Gustav]

We are clocks....

 

[river]

free-will is about awarness , perspective and dwelling upon and then change in thought and/or action

 

[Regular0ldguy]

I am feeling so warm and fuzzy.

 

[Pandaemoni]

I have. You see the snake coming, and before it gets too close, you decide whether to stab it, jump, let it reach you, etc.

In this case, the science is more clear the amygdala processes the image the the snake and sets you down a course of action *before* the cerebral cortex even processes the signal. The idea that we make a conscious choice in fight or flight cases is more demonstrably unlikely than in almost any other case.

Deliberation takes to long. If someone throws a punch, you don't have time to look, evaluate, choose and act. Conscious deliberation (assuming arguendo that that is what it is) is there only after the fact, likely to serve as part of a feedback mechanism in case the automatic response was suboptimal. Prior to that effect kicking in, though, your actions are clearly governed by the amygdala.

It works both ways too. The brain can "decide" that a snake in not a threat, and (despite the possibility of a "choice" not to react fearfully), the amygdala can override the conscious part of the brain. For example, if you are afraid of spiders and a friend brings his harmless pet spider over to you and places it in your hand, notwithstnading your "choice" no to react to it, if the spider starts moving you might react anyway, drop the pet spider, scream and jump away.

None of that should be (I assume) troubling, as having free will does not require that all acts be freely chosen. You do not will you heart to beat. So there is no reason to be concerned that we do not will instinctive reactions...except for one tiny hiccup, people often report the feeling that they "decided" to take actions that are clearly instinctive. Their brains do create, in those circumstances, an illusion of conscious choice that the neuroscience dismisses.

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

I have. You see the snake coming, and before it gets too close, you decide whether to stab it, jump, let it reach you, etc.

The snake is the causal chain. Magic doesn't jump between you and the snake to take over. You have time to react if you know how things work. We aren't clocks.

We are biological clocks . We are clocks . Yes we are . Magic jump in between Me and a rattle snake one time . Actually it was the snake . I stepped 2 inches from the head of a rattle snake and the snake choice was to slither under the rock it's body was under . I about freaked but was on the move so it was a fleeting moment . Did the snake have a choice . You might think so sense it did not bite my leg or foot . Yet most of you don't see a snake as having free choice being that it is an animal . Well you could say it is the nature of a western diamond back rattler as they are a passive creature unless provoked. An eastern rattler probably would have bit me . The thing is you make one choice unless you jump on it stab it and then walk away . I been known to do that . One time when the river was high I was wading the river to get to the other side were we set up camp ( Back Packing ) I almost made it and the river sweep Me away into the deep with my pack on so I pushed off the bottom towards the shore like a mad man as the weight of the water soaking into my pack dragged Me down more and more as the water soaked in . I made it and am here to tell the tale . So as I was coming out of the river pulling my pack off my back there was a rattle snake right there 3 or 4 feet in front of me rattling away . I jetted over to it while picking up a rock and smashed it's head . I was pulling a rope to , so I had a rope in my hand as the plan was I would cross the river with the rope so we could tie the line from shore to shore and pull across the river with a one man life raft with all the other gear we had with us . We ate Rattle snake that night and it was good . The best rattle snake I have ever eaten . O.K. A little off topic . Does a rattle snake have free will , No more than a human has free will . Humans live by there social structure that dictates the actions of humans by the time slot in history that is afforded to them .
The rattle snake that decides to Bit Me or not does so because of cause. Humans are no different . We only think we are! The Animals are laughing at us big time . What do you think all those noises they make are all about?

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

Not at all.
I believe that how a person reasons about free will translates into how they will understand their lives and how they will go about their lives.

For example, we can reasonably assume that a battered wife who believes her free will is an illusion will more likely stay with her abusive husband than one who believes her choice is real and relevant.

Run-of-the-mill people might not use fancy philosophical language, but instead concepts such as "believe in yourself" and "self-confidence" (or lack thereof) to express their ideas about (the realness of) free will.
These concepts can be analyzed in philosophical terms. Sometimes, such an analysis is necessary for purposes of accuracy (in entirely personal matters).

There is only one choice in your example . Get away and out of the relationship . Anyone that cares about the woman would tell her that. Complacency does not imply free will . In action either . There is a reason other than what you imply keeping her from separating from the violence . Typically I would say it is a loop and related to low self esteem which was imposed upon her by the perp and possibly her family before the perp . You could convince her she has no free will and that is why she will leave the dirty bastard, She has no choice if she wants to live . Or she could just kill him . She will make the choice , but it is still one choice and in that moment in time it is the only choice .

O.K. this is what I learned in sales . You find 3 houses you are going to show to a perspective buyer . You gear the choices to the desires the buyer has indicated as there requirements in housing . One you make a little off from what they want , the other one is o.k. , but the price is way to high and the third one is as close as you can get and they still can afford . Now what are the chances the buyer will buy the one the salesman set them up to buy . Assuming the buyer is a serious buyer and needs to buy a house . I seen it time and time again by expert sales people were the buyer can't get you to write up the deal fast enough. Was there free will in the purchase. The agent knew which house the buyer would buy before hand . They stacked the deck so to speak

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

that is funny

 

[Regular0ldguy]

I did say "before it gets too close". So I wasn't positing a fight or flight scenario. Sure, I am aware of reflex and our "lizard brain" (which I warned my kid about using during his early teens-telling him to be aware of the prehistoric part of his brain trying to take over and make him act like a fool-this gave him a reflective skill that benefited him greatly).

Another fun anecdote you reminded me of. When I was a kid, I noticed when I was very young I was prone to panic and freezing to the point of inaction. I immediately recognized that losing voluntary control in cases of danger was itself extremely dangerous, not to mention embarrassing as hell. So being aware of that tendency, I worked on it until I had control over that little tendency and eliminated its influence. There after I became very cool "under fire" and became a leader. I saw the snake coming and I killed it (or replaced it with a different and more useful snake).