What is the actual free will humans have?

[fast]

We don't see objects directly. We see (perceive, detect, represent) reflected or transmitted light.

But what I'm saying is that what it MEANS to say we see objects directly encompasses that we see reflected or transmitted light. Language encapsulates the how into the what. When we use the teachings of science to narrow the scope that language otherwise includes, it leaves us with silly-speak. We would go around saying things followed by denying the things we say. Example, "I saw the sun" and that blinded me causing the fender bender, oh but technically, "I didn't see the sun," as I only saw the photos emitted from the sun eight minutes ago...while I was at the convenience store "picking up red apples" which technically isn't true because "apples aren't red."

It's one thing to say it was the sun when in fact it was my gaze at a lady walking that contributed to the fender bender. The latter isn't a formulation of the prior. In this instance, a 'what' is being substituted for a 'what'. Why it's okay to say I saw the sun and picked up red apples is because the 'how' doesn't negate the proper formulation.

Think of it this way, not quite accurate, but for communications sake, "I directly observed the object" is shorthand for I directly observed the photons reflected off the object." If the former "I directly observed the object" is shorthand for the latter and the latter is true, then we should accept the former. When records reflect that it was my not paying attention and not the sun, then we can deny that the cause of the fender bender was the sun ... not because of the more explicit I saw photos reflected.

 

[fromderinside]

And again, what I said was an illusion is that we spontaneously take our subjective experience of our perceptions of things to be the actual real objects there must be out there.

EB

Although it's neither spontaneous nor illusion our subjective perceptions reported relate quite well with actual real events, objects, that are out there. I fail to see where illusion, fake reality, deceptive reality or non-reality, is operative. In fact such recorded perceptions have oft been related to ideal observers, wonderful company for that fool maker illusion don't you think. At least we need agree on a term for how subjective experience is related to reality rather that your Buffunio related subjective experience to a fool.

I'd rather think my career was other than failure because you characterize it as a Buffino venture.

 

[Speakpigeon]

And again, what I said was an illusion is that we spontaneously take our subjective experience of our perceptions of things to be the actual real objects there must be out there.

EB

Although it's neither spontaneous nor illusion our subjective perceptions reported relate quite well with actual real events, objects, that are out there.

I think it's more a case that most of us have broadly similar perceptions and so we can comfort each other in our belief that we see the world as it is. That in itself doesn't imply that our perception could somehow represent real things out there as they are. I don't even see how that could be possible and I don't think it's even conceivable. All we need from our perception systems is consistency across time and to some extent across the population.

I fail to see where illusion, fake reality, deceptive reality or non-reality, is operative.

Maybe it doesn't ever become operative except for very few of us but when it does, it might be a good idea to understand some of what is going on.

In fact such recorded perceptions have oft been related to ideal observers, wonderful company for that fool maker illusion don't you think. At least we need agree on a term for how subjective experience is related to reality rather that your Buffunio related subjective experience to a fool.

Our subjective experience is part of reality, inevitably, but the question is whether experience is experience of perceptions of a physical world out there.

In any case, it's just a fact that I don't know that this is the case.

Still, I see no harm in one sticking to our spontaneous belief that it is and I myself can't really take my own perceptions any different. So, you could say, it's all possibly very theoretical, and you should be left to enjoy the comfort of your metaphysical beliefs.

I'd rather think my career was other than failure because you characterize it as a Buffino venture.

Ah, so you can perhaps understand now religious people who get all upset because they're told there's no God.
EB

PS. Buffino? Buffunio?

 

[DBT]

We don't see objects directly. We see (perceive, detect, represent) reflected or transmitted light.

But what I'm saying is that what it MEANS to say we see objects directly encompasses that we see reflected or transmitted light. Language encapsulates the how into the what. When we use the teachings of science to narrow the scope that language otherwise includes, it leaves us with silly-speak. We would go around saying things followed by denying the things we say. Example, "I saw the sun" and that blinded me causing the fender bender, oh but technically, "I didn't see the sun," as I only saw the photos emitted from the sun eight minutes ago...while I was at the convenience store "picking up red apples" which technically isn't true because "apples aren't red."

It's one thing to say it was the sun when in fact it was my gaze at a lady walking that contributed to the fender bender. The latter isn't a formulation of the prior. In this instance, a 'what' is being substituted for a 'what'. Why it's okay to say I saw the sun and picked up red apples is because the 'how' doesn't negate the proper formulation.

Think of it this way, not quite accurate, but for communications sake, "I directly observed the object" is shorthand for I directly observed the photons reflected off the object." If the former "I directly observed the object" is shorthand for the latter and the latter is true, then we should accept the former. When records reflect that it was my not paying attention and not the sun, then we can deny that the cause of the fender bender was the sun ... not because of the more explicit I saw photos reflected.

I don't necessarily disagree with what you say.

My comment was related to the underlying mechanisms of matter/energy....including the architecture and activity of the brain which acquires information from the external world and uses some but not all of that information to construct a mental representation of the world and self in order to interact with it...as it has evolved to do.

Each species and individuals within a species having a unique perspective into the world by token of its neural wiring and experience/learning acquired over a lifetime.

None of which relates well to the concept of free will. Just decision making ability and will, the drive to act.

 

[fromderinside]

I think it's more a case that most of us have broadly similar perceptions and so we can comfort each other in our belief that we see the world as it is. That in itself doesn't imply that our perception could somehow represent real things out there as they are. I don't even see how that could be possible and I don't think it's even conceivable. All we need from our perception systems is consistency across time and to some extent across the population.

It isn't just because we are similar. It's because, as living beings, we've had to compete to pass on genes that had survived the in the real world. The parameters of evolvoution theory, that process, easily answers the question about whether we could possibly lead us to perceive the real world. It's very conceivable, In fact it's currently accepted and documented scientific theory.

Maybe it doesn't ever become operative except for very few of us but when it does, it might be a good idea to understand some of what is going on.

The thing about outliers is they stand out they cry to be explained. They actually form a strong basis for scientific investigation. Outliers are the meat of study leading to understanding perception in psychophysics. It forms the basis for understanding our commonality and relation to the real world.

Our subjective experience is part of reality, inevitably, but the question is whether experience is experience of perceptions of a physical world out there.

In any case, it's just a fact that I don't know that this is the case.

Still, I see no harm in one sticking to our spontaneous belief that it is and I myself can't really take my own perceptions any different. So, you could say, it's all possibly very theoretical, and you should be left to enjoy the comfort of your metaphysical beliefs.

Actually if is our doubt about the relation of reality to our subjective experience that provides a jumping off point for empirical study. Doubt about that relation was the primary question that lead to the development of scientific study and the construction of models, theories, explaining the relation of perception to reality.

Ah, so you can perhaps understand now religious people who get all upset because they're told there's no God.
EB

PS. Buffino? Buffunio?

No I don't. All the religious do is wring hands and store bromides, mostly useless, as they throw up their hands and pass the problems of thought on to others.

I drop these little tidbits to make sure you are paying attention (not). Yes isb Buffunio.

 

[Speakpigeon]

We don't have any direct access to the world outside. All we may have, if we even have that, is something which works like a representation of the world. Colours stand for electromagnetic wavelengths, temperatures stand for molecular/atomic agitation, etc. We can only decide of our actions on the basis of this representation. And indeed, we spontaneously take this representation to be the real world outside!

If you don't understand this, then I'm sorry but there's nothing I can do for you.

All we can hope is that our representation is good enough but we only discover after the fact whenever it isn't. Science essentially has shown us both that our representation is good enough for ordinary, everyday purposes, as we indeed thought, and that it wasn't good at all as soon as we somehow come out of our ordinary environment. Think of radiations, for example.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

The quality of representation isn't in subjective or willed hands. It comes with continued existence of being.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The quality of representation isn't in subjective or willed hands. It comes with continued existence of being.

Nah! What you really meant to say was that effectiveness of representation comes with continued existence of being, not subjectivity.

And this might even be true. I wouldn't know it is, but it might.
EB

 

[DBT]

We don't have any direct access to the world outside. All we may have, if we even have that, is something which works like a representation of the world. Colours stand for electromagnetic wavelengths, temperatures stand for molecular/atomic agitation, etc. We can only decide of our actions on the basis of this representation. And indeed, we spontaneously take this representation to be the real world outside!

If you don't understand this, then I'm sorry but there's nothing I can do for you.

All we can hope is that our representation is good enough but we only discover after the fact whenever it isn't. Science essentially has shown us both that our representation is good enough for ordinary, everyday purposes, as we indeed thought, and that it wasn't good at all as soon as we somehow come out of our ordinary environment. Think of radiations, for example.
EB

The outside world acts upon us regardless of our mental representation of it. We not being separate from it. We being made of the same stuff.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The outside world acts upon us regardless of our mental representation of it. We not being separate from it. We being made of the same stuff.

My point is that we don't actually know any of that. We certainly believe it's true. Maybe it's true, but we don't know.

In other words, you start with an unproven assumption.
EB

 

[DBT]

The outside world acts upon us regardless of our mental representation of it. We not being separate from it. We being made of the same stuff.

My point is that we don't actually know any of that. We certainly believe it's true. Maybe it's true, but we don't know.

In other words, you start with an unproven assumption.
EB

But something is there. Something that we have no direct mental control over. Something that does not bend to our will or change according to our expectations. Which should be knowable because it is testable, repeatability and predictability. Theories can be formed, assumptions and beliefs tested.

 

[Speakpigeon]

But something is there. Something that we have no direct mental control over. Something that does not bend to our will or change according to our expectations. Which should be knowable because it is testable, repeatability and predictability. Theories can be formed, assumptions and beliefs tested.

It seems to me all you can say is that what happens seems to be beyond your control. This seems to suggest there's something else than just you but it's not conclusive. We tend to reason as if reality necessarily behaved according to rules, but maybe it's not the case.

Obviously, we have no good reasons to dismiss our impression that there are rules and that there is a material world complying with something like 'the laws of nature'. I don't even think it would be doable for us to not believe that except perhaps in case of madness. So, we have this belief and it's fine. But belief is not knowledge and science itself has shown us how our most basic beliefs can be wrong, and that we can survive on the basis of erroneous beliefs.
EB

 

[ruby sparks]

Thinking about this topic recently, I have come to the conclusion that it is useful, possibly crucial, at the outset, to talk about it strictly in machine terms. This of course is making an assumption that we are not more than mere biological machines, so may not suit everyone, such as those who think we have souls, but I think it's clarifying. I strongly suspect that for one reason or another, most people implicitly feel that they are not a machine. This idea has been bolstered by religion.

Once one adopts the machine perspective, I think it becomes clearer that although we can have additional degrees of freedom and enhanced capacities for agency compared to other entities, we can never (barring some groundbreaking new explanation) have fully free will.

 

[untermensche]

Thinking about this topic recently, I have come to the conclusion that it is useful, possibly crucial, at the outset, to talk about it strictly in machine terms. This of course is making an assumption that we are not more than mere biological machines, so may not suit everyone, such as those who think we have souls, but I think it's clarifying. I strongly suspect that for one reason or another, most people implicitly feel that they are not a machine. This idea has been bolstered by religion.

Once one adopts the machine perspective, I think it becomes clearer that although we can have additional degrees of freedom and enhanced capacities for agency compared to other entities, we can never (barring some groundbreaking new explanation) have fully free will.

The will is expressed in the things we think about to some conclusion.

We thought about it to that degree as a free choice. There is no evidence of compulsion or need to do it.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Thinking about this topic recently, I have come to the conclusion that it is useful, possibly crucial, at the outset, to talk about it strictly in machine terms. This of course is making an assumption that we are not more than mere biological machines, so may not suit everyone, such as those who think we have souls, but I think it's clarifying. I strongly suspect that for one reason or another, most people implicitly feel that they are not a machine. This idea has been bolstered by religion.

Once one adopts the machine perspective, I think it becomes clearer that although we can have additional degrees of freedom and enhanced capacities for agency compared to other entities, we can never (barring some groundbreaking new explanation) have fully free will.

I broadly agree that we can see ourselves as a kind of machine. However, I fail to see the usefulness of thinking in those terms. You didn't even justify your idea that it is useful or even crucial to do so.

As to maximalist free will, I don't believe many people think they have it so it's really no problem. We grow up as human beings having to learn what we can do and what we cannot. And I think that most people end up as a result having very little ambition beyond watching TV. It's not for me to say if it's a good thing or not but it seems to be the situation.
EB

 

[Subsymbolic]

This is (I think) the guy to go to...

Yes, thanks. Very good example of somebody shooting at a dead cat.

It's significant here that it should be a religious guy personifying the wrongness in the idea of free will.

Except that, personally, I don't think that it's the same idea that most people have of free will. Instead, I think most people take free will to be something they experience in the course of their daily life. People have to make choices nobody will make for them. That is must be something within their brain that computes their choice is irrelevant because their brain is an integral part of themselves so the choice they make is still their choice.
EB

See, I told you we disagree. In fact, I suspect it's making Ruby and I agree which is a bit odd for both of us...

 

[DBT]

But something is there. Something that we have no direct mental control over. Something that does not bend to our will or change according to our expectations. Which should be knowable because it is testable, repeatability and predictability. Theories can be formed, assumptions and beliefs tested.

It seems to me all you can say is that what happens seems to be beyond your control.

This seems to suggest there's something else than just you but it's not conclusive. We tend to reason as if reality necessarily behaved according to rules, but maybe it's not the case.

Why does it ''seem'' to be this way? Nobody has ever demonstrated direct mental control over the objects and events of the external world, only one's own body as a function of the brain being represented in conscious mind.

 

[Speakpigeon]

It seems to me all you can say is that what happens seems to be beyond your control.

This seems to suggest there's something else than just you but it's not conclusive. We tend to reason as if reality necessarily behaved according to rules, but maybe it's not the case.

Why does it ''seem'' to be this way? Nobody has ever demonstrated direct mental control over the objects and events of the external world, only one's own body as a function of the brain being represented in conscious mind.

We could go beyond the seeming if we knew. But we don't.

As I already said, "we have no good reasons to dismiss our impression that there are rules and that there is a material world complying with something like 'the laws of nature'. I don't even think it would be doable for us to not believe that except perhaps in case of madness. So, we have this belief and it's fine. But belief is not knowledge and science itself has shown us how our most basic beliefs can be wrong, and that we can survive on the basis of erroneous beliefs."
EB

 

[fromderinside]

The outside world acts upon us regardless of our mental representation of it. We not being separate from it. We being made of the same stuff.

My point is that we don't actually know any of that. We certainly believe it's true. Maybe it's true, but we don't know.

In other words, you start with an unproven assumption.
EB

Somebody probably already said this so I'm going to do it anyway. We is a construct you make up.

Let me explain.

If 'we' is some sort of consciousness then 'we' can extend to sensors that transduce external stimuli. If so then 'we' actaully have access to external stimuli. The stimuli are processed so it can be used by by consciousness and other operators using the information in some, many, ways.

 

[DBT]

It seems to me all you can say is that what happens seems to be beyond your control.

This seems to suggest there's something else than just you but it's not conclusive. We tend to reason as if reality necessarily behaved according to rules, but maybe it's not the case.

Why does it ''seem'' to be this way? Nobody has ever demonstrated direct mental control over the objects and events of the external world, only one's own body as a function of the brain being represented in conscious mind.

We could go beyond the seeming if we knew. But we don't.

As I already said, "we have no good reasons to dismiss our impression that there are rules and that there is a material world complying with something like 'the laws of nature'. I don't even think it would be doable for us to not believe that except perhaps in case of madness. So, we have this belief and it's fine. But belief is not knowledge and science itself has shown us how our most basic beliefs can be wrong, and that we can survive on the basis of erroneous beliefs."
EB

That doesn't appear to address the testability of our assumption, if that's what it is, of the existence of an external objective reality/world and our inability to effect this reality purely through mental effort or will.

Why is it an assumption? We are born into a vast and complex world that to all appearances is not of our own making, or subject to our will, instead it is we who have to learn the rules and principles of the world and learn to negotiate within it according to its rules and principles and not something we may just assume.