A simple explanation of free will.

[bilby]

It probably does, but not in a way that helps you to establish a case for free will.

If,

they have freedom,

and they are integral to the decision making process,

then what else would free will need?

In other words, what else would we need in order for you to accept free will?

A way for the freedom to flow through to the resultant decision.

The steering column in a car has, inevitably, a small amount of 'play'; the wheels can steer a minuscule amount independently of the input from the driver. This effect is too small for the car to be able to go anywhere other than where the steering wheel directs it.

You need to show that the quantum effect is not just present, but significant. But you can't. Because it isn't.

And even if you could, introducing randomness is not the same as introducing freedom.

Your position is so deeply flawed on so many counts that it is difficult to know where to start in refuting it. It shares this feature with most religious arguments.

 

[4321lynx]

You being an insincere jerk is what is going on. I know that you are not as stupid as your last posts.
You doesnt put any thought at all to them, you just jot down whatever shit comes to your mind.

That what happens. I'm fed up with it.

If he didn't just jot down whatever came to his mind, he'd always be correct, and it wouldn't be fun to argue with him. Admit it... you love it!

And don't forget he really cannot help it. He has no free will. He merely thinks he has but that's an illusion.

 

[arkirk]

If he didn't just jot down whatever came to his mind, he'd always be correct, and it wouldn't be fun to argue with him. Admit it... you love it!

And don't forget he really cannot help it. He has no free will. He merely thinks he has but that's an illusion.

Sad that we argue against the inevitable. The fact remains that the outcomes of our actions are a function of how well our brains perform and that they are not too polluted with chemicals and beliefs that inhibit rational thought.

 

[ryan]

You are the one who brought up illusions. But if I talk about illusions, I am not sincere. What is going on here?!

You being an insincere jerk is what is going on. I know that you are not as stupid as your last posts.
You doesnt put any thought at all to them, you just jot down whatever shit comes to your mind.

That what happens. I'm fed up with it.

Is this your way of avoiding the issue? If not, you have just wasted time and electricity.

If you say that free will is an illusion, fine. But don't get all bent out of shape when I say that your certainty might be an illusion too, especially when it is certainty about something as vastly unknown as the brain.

 

[ryan]

A way for the freedom to flow through to the resultant decision.

Read, "A review and update of a controversial 20-year-old theory of consciousness published in Physics of Life Reviews claims that consciousness derives from deeper level, finer scale activities inside brain neurons. The recent discovery of quantum vibrations in "microtubules" inside brain neurons corroborates this theory, according to review authors Stuart Hameroff and Sir Roger Penrose."

from http://phys.org/news/2014-01-discovery-quantum-vibrations-microtubules-corroborates.html#jCp .

For further reading see, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-consciousness/#4.1

The steering column in a car has, inevitably, a small amount of 'play'; the wheels can steer a minuscule amount independently of the input from the driver. This effect is too small for the car to be able to go anywhere other than where the steering wheel directs it.

The steering wheel has no freedom in terms of free will. The steering wheel does whatever the operator makes it do.

You need to show that the quantum effect is not just present, but significant. But you can't. Because it isn't.

I don't need to do s***. You need to show that it isn't since my argument is only that free will shouldn't be ruled out.

And even if you could, introducing randomness is not the same as introducing freedom.

The randomness is what we observe. QM says nothing about being the randomness.

 

[apeman]

Yes, I'm implying that the universe is the product of a mind.

When you say 'a mind' you imply that it is a single mind that creates the universe....which raises the question: which particular mind?

For the sake of this discussion it doesn't matter which particular mind we are in, it is enough to realise that the world around us may not be a mind independent thing. Materialists have boxed themselves in with their unprovable theory about a substance (mind independent stuff) that we have no evidence for...they are locked into circular arguments like " the brain causes thoughts".

The simple fact is that our minds can think of things/situations that do not currently exist, that means that our thoughts are not all caused by the world... there is at least some degree of separation. This is also (if you think it through) evidence that we do not exist in a material (mind independent) world.

 

[Juma]

The simple fact is that our minds can think of things/situations that do not currently exist, that means that our thoughts are not all caused by the world.

Why would our thoughts have to mirror the reality exactly? That would really be weird. And totally impossible...

 

[DBT]

When you say 'a mind' you imply that it is a single mind that creates the universe....which raises the question: which particular mind?

For the sake of this discussion it doesn't matter which particular mind we are in, it is enough to realise that the world around us may not be a mind independent thing.

QM supports an interaction of a conscious observer and 'wave collapse,' but this does not necessarily mean a Universal Mind, or even that wave function is collapsing. We may be all in superposition, if the MW interpretation is correct....in that case hard determinism is restored.

Materialists have boxed themselves in with their unprovable theory about a substance (mind independent stuff) that we have no evidence for...they are locked into circular arguments like " the brain causes thoughts".

The brain is a macro scale structure composed of wave function collapsed/fundamental particles, which once observed remains a particle for all observers.
The macro scale structure of a brain serves a purpose, it is not just window dressing. As it stands, QM cannot explain Biology or evolution or the role of neurons and networks in terms of the relationship between probability wave function and conscious observation.

It's not as simple as new age philosophers would like to think.

As it stands, the only example that have of the existence of consciousness/conscious observer is related to the presence of a functional brain and a specific class of neural activity.

The simple fact is that our minds can think of things/situations that do not currently exist, that means that our thoughts are not all caused by the world... there is at least some degree of separation. This is also (if you think it through) evidence that we do not exist in a material (mind independent) world.

Wrong. All of our thoughts are related to the things of the world...but we can extrapolate and project, what we do is rearrange acquired information in order to create new combinations of matter/energy structures, cars, appliances, etc. All electrical appliances and gadgets work on the principles of physics (QM as the foundation) as far as we understand them, and are constructed from raw materials acquired from our environment.

All this is achieved because the human brain has evolved the necessary information processing power to perform the calculations. The only animal on the planet with a brain that is complex enough for that ability to emerge.

 

[DBT]

It probably does, but not in a way that helps you to establish a case for free will.

If,

they have freedom,

and they are integral to the decision making process,

then what else would free will need?

In other words, what else would we need in order for you to accept free will?

They/we are what they/we are because genes and evolution respond to environment conditions and shape physical form and the mental abilities the organism to suit the conditions. Saying 'they have freedom' doesn't say anything about the form and function of an organism and its physical and mental abilities. And you still appear to conflate the ability to act with freedom of will.

We can 'freely' act on the basis of will, but we cannot freely will the formation of our desires and fears, aversions and prejudices, our habits and addictions, our needs and wants, which are a response to external conditions based on an interaction of genetics and environment being represented in the form of conscious experience. There is no independent central orchestrator of brain response.

 

[ryan]

If,

they have freedom,

and they are integral to the decision making process,

then what else would free will need?

In other words, what else would we need in order for you to accept free will?

They/we are what they/we are because genes and evolution respond to environment conditions and shape physical form and the mental abilities the organism to suit the conditions. Saying 'they have freedom' doesn't say anything about the form and function of an organism and its physical and mental abilities.

I would expect an organism with some free will to appear to behave/function randomly at times.

And you still appear to conflate the ability to act with freedom of will.

I don't know where you get this from.

We can 'freely' act on the basis of will ...

Please explain what you mean here.

 

[DBT]

They/we are what they/we are because genes and evolution respond to environment conditions and shape physical form and the mental abilities the organism to suit the conditions. Saying 'they have freedom' doesn't say anything about the form and function of an organism and its physical and mental abilities.

I would expect an organism with some free will to appear to behave/function randomly at times.

Do you have an example of this 'random' free will?

I don't know where you get this from.

It appears to be implied in remarks such as: ''they are integral to the decision making process'' - the neural network decision making process doesn't need a 'they' - a reference to 'they' relates to the organism/person as a whole but not to conscious self identity that's somehow integral to the decision making process on a neuronal level.

Please explain what you mean here.

I'm referring to the distinction between action and will, a distinction made a long time ago.

I'm sure you can recognize this quote and its author:

''Der Mensch kann tun was er will; er kann aber nicht wollen was er will.''

 

[ryan]

I would expect an organism with some free will to appear to behave/function randomly at times.

Do you have an example of this 'random' free will?

Unless the organism tells you what it is going to do, how would you know? It would appear random.

I don't know where you get this from.

It appears to be implied in remarks such as: ''they are integral to the decision making process'' - the neural network decision making process doesn't need a 'they' - a reference to 'they' relates to the organism/person as a whole but not to conscious self identity that's somehow integral to the decision making process on a neuronal level.

"They" was meant to be a pronoun for the microtubules.

Please explain what you mean here.

I'm referring to the distinction between action and will, a distinction made a long time ago.

I'm sure you can recognize this quote and its author:

''Der Mensch kann tun was er will; er kann aber nicht wollen was er will.''

I have absolutely no idea what the quote means. What does it have to do with what you would see free will as?

 

[apeman]

The simple fact is that our minds can think of things/situations that do not currently exist, that means that our thoughts are not all caused by the world.

Why would our thoughts have to mirror the reality exactly? That would really be weird. And totally impossible...

If our thoughts were caused entirely by the world around us it would be necessary that every thought was a true reflection of reality. The reason our thoughts (unlike those of say an ant) don't completely reflect reality is because they have a degree of separateness from it.

An ant's "thoughts" reflect reality as it is ( that's why they haven't invented anything beyond their instinctive drives)...so such thoughts are not impossible.

 

[apeman]

For the sake of this discussion it doesn't matter which particular mind we are in, it is enough to realise that the world around us may not be a mind independent thing.

QM supports an interaction of a conscious observer and 'wave collapse,' but this does not necessarily mean a Universal Mind, or even that wave function is collapsing. We may be all in superposition, if the MW interpretation is correct....in that case hard determinism is restored.

Materialists have boxed themselves in with their unprovable theory about a substance (mind independent stuff) that we have no evidence for...they are locked into circular arguments like " the brain causes thoughts".

The brain is a macro scale structure composed of wave function collapsed/fundamental particles, which once observed remains a particle for all observers.
The macro scale structure of a brain serves a purpose, it is not just window dressing. As it stands, QM cannot explain Biology or evolution or the role of neurons and networks in terms of the relationship between probability wave function and conscious observation.

It's not as simple as new age philosophers would like to think.

As it stands, the only example that have of the existence of consciousness/conscious observer is related to the presence of a functional brain and a specific class of neural activity.

The simple fact is that our minds can think of things/situations that do not currently exist, that means that our thoughts are not all caused by the world... there is at least some degree of separation. This is also (if you think it through) evidence that we do not exist in a material (mind independent) world.

Wrong. All of our thoughts are related to the things of the world...but we can extrapolate and project, what we do is rearrange acquired information in order to create new combinations of matter/energy structures, cars, appliances, etc. All electrical appliances and gadgets work on the principles of physics (QM as the foundation) as far as we understand them, and are constructed from raw materials acquired from our environment.

All this is achieved because the human brain has evolved the necessary information processing power to perform the calculations. The only animal on the planet with a brain that is complex enough for that ability to emerge.

Please explain to me how you know that you are not dreaming this stuff up. Why can't you just accept that that you are a receiver of information and that that information does not need to exist mind independently? How do you know that your ideas prove a material reality?

 

[OLDMAN]

QM supports an interaction of a conscious observer and 'wave collapse,' but this does not necessarily mean a Universal Mind, or even that wave function is collapsing. We may be all in superposition, if the MW interpretation is correct....in that case hard determinism is restored.

Materialists have boxed themselves in with their unprovable theory about a substance (mind independent stuff) that we have no evidence for...they are locked into circular arguments like " the brain causes thoughts".

The brain is a macro scale structure composed of wave function collapsed/fundamental particles, which once observed remains a particle for all observers.
The macro scale structure of a brain serves a purpose, it is not just window dressing. As it stands, QM cannot explain Biology or evolution or the role of neurons and networks in terms of the relationship between probability wave function and conscious observation.

It's not as simple as new age philosophers would like to think.

As it stands, the only example that have of the existence of consciousness/conscious observer is related to the presence of a functional brain and a specific class of neural activity.

The simple fact is that our minds can think of things/situations that do not currently exist, that means that our thoughts are not all caused by the world... there is at least some degree of separation. This is also (if you think it through) evidence that we do not exist in a material (mind independent) world.

Wrong. All of our thoughts are related to the things of the world...but we can extrapolate and project, what we do is rearrange acquired information in order to create new combinations of matter/energy structures, cars, appliances, etc. All electrical appliances and gadgets work on the principles of physics (QM as the foundation) as far as we understand them, and are constructed from raw materials acquired from our environment.

All this is achieved because the human brain has evolved the necessary information processing power to perform the calculations. The only animal on the planet with a brain that is complex enough for that ability to emerge.

Please explain to me how you know that you are not dreaming this stuff up. Why can't you just accept that that you are a receiver of information and that that information does not need to exist mind independently? How do you know that your ideas prove a material reality?

Accidents, surprises, and the actions of others, tell us we are not dreaming this stuff up.

 

[DBT]

Do you have an example of this 'random' free will?

Unless the organism tells you what it is going to do, how would you know? It would appear random.

'Random' does not equate to 'free' will - which implies the ability to alter circumstances by an act of will. Random events are not chosen, not willed and are not subject to conscious will, or control. It's not the the organism can tell you anything because the behaviour of the organism is specifically governed by the brain. The functioning of the brain is mostly unconscious, you as a conscious entity, being formed and generated by a brain, do not have conscious access to the neural production mechanisms that bring you to into being.

I have absolutely no idea what the quote means. What does it have to do with what you would see free will as?

As I explained, the author expresses the distinction between the ability to act and the (lack) of ability to will what we 'will.' This has been brought up and explained too many times, it should be understood by now.

 

[DBT]

Please explain to me how you know that you are not dreaming this stuff up.

That's getting in the territory of Solipsism.

Why can't you just accept that that you are a receiver of information and that that information does not need to exist mind independently? How do you know that your ideas prove a material reality?

That, for all practical purposes, is Solipsism. You have not always existed, nor will you exist for long....something predates the existence of our individual selves and continues to exist long after we disintegrate back to probability wave function/particles or 'wavicles' as some have put it.

The quantum enigma lies in the relationship of the observer to the observed. The brain itself is composed of wave function 'decohered' fundamental particles that are most likely entangled with every thing else, consequently it is probably the activity of the brain that effects wave collapse in previously 'unobserved' probability wave function...which is observed in particle state by all subsequent observers, wave function has collapsed/decoherence and the brain interprets that information in the form of the objects and events of the world, other people, houses, sun, moon, etc.

But the fact is, nobody knows how it works, or what the ultimate nature of the world is, or what the relationship between brain/mind/observation and wave function entail, whether entanglement or something else, nor is entanglement, Einsteins 'spooky action at a distance"

We don't know.

What we do know (or should know) is that you or I, or anyone else that I know of, cannot by an act of will choose what we observe. We cannot choose wave collapse or particle position, we cannot and do not consciously choose the attributes, features and conditions of existence. We do not choose the world as we observe it to be, we do not choose its objects and its events and its rules and principles.

 

[ryan]

Unless the organism tells you what it is going to do, how would you know? It would appear random.

'Random' does not equate to 'free' will - which implies the ability to alter circumstances by an act of will. Random events are not chosen, not willed and are not subject to conscious will, or control. It's not the the organism can tell you anything because the behaviour of the organism is specifically governed by the brain. The functioning of the brain is mostly unconscious, you as a conscious entity, being formed and generated by a brain, do not have conscious access to the neural production mechanisms that bring you to into being.

Okay, so if a robot had free will to turn left, go straight or turn right, would you know what it chooses, or would its choice appear random?

 

[DBT]

'Random' does not equate to 'free' will - which implies the ability to alter circumstances by an act of will. Random events are not chosen, not willed and are not subject to conscious will, or control. It's not the the organism can tell you anything because the behaviour of the organism is specifically governed by the brain. The functioning of the brain is mostly unconscious, you as a conscious entity, being formed and generated by a brain, do not have conscious access to the neural production mechanisms that bring you to into being.

Okay, so if a robot had free will to turn left, go straight or turn right, would you know what it chooses, or would its choice appear random?

Aren't there rational reasons for turning left or right or going straight ahead? The Robot may need regular maintenance, it had an appointment at at its service centre just around the corner, second door on the left.

If the action was purely random, a quantum glitch, the atoms in a key motor action processor spontaneously went into wave function, the glitch turned the Robots legs into an unchosen direction, making this an unchosen action and an unchosen direction. This is not even a willed action yet alone a 'freely' willed action. Not being a matter of 'will' - this is not an example of 'free will.'

 

[ryan]

Okay, so if a robot had free will to turn left, go straight or turn right, would you know what it chooses, or would its choice appear random?

Aren't there rational reasons for turning left or right or going straight ahead? The Robot may need regular maintenance, it had an appointment at at its service centre just around the corner, second door on the left.

If the action was purely random, a quantum glitch, the atoms in a key motor action processor spontaneously went into wave function, the glitch turned the Robots legs into an unchosen direction, making this an unchosen action and an unchosen direction. This is not even a willed action yet alone a 'freely' willed action. Not being a matter of 'will' - this is not an example of 'free will.'

Please answer my question. I will ask it again: if a robot had free will to turn left, go straight or turn right, would you know what it chooses, or would its choice appear random?