A simple explanation of free will.

[ryan]

Even if we knew that wave function collapse theories were true - which is controversial - why would you say that everything is collapsed? Surely there must be much that isn't collapsed.

That is what experiments like the double slit and superposition have shown, that wave function distributed between two boxes (in superposition), once observed, a particle is present in one box but not the other, and remains a particle for all observers. But if not observed, both boxes display wave interference behaviour (double slit) and wave function/superposition remains distributed between the two boxes. The act of observation collapses wave function: Bells Inequality/Theorem, Clauser's initial experiments having been confirmed, reality and separability, etc, etc.

I was wondering why you said, "everything in the universe is composed of collapsed wave/particles". Did you mean to type something else?

Another interpretation being that wave function is not 'collapsing' but expressing particle position in an alternative world, the many worlds interpretation.

I will say the same thing with the MWI as any other indeterminate theory, it may be the agent who chooses the world which would appear random by another person.

Take your pick, or construct another interpretation, it makes no difference....the observer does indeed effect wave function collapse or expression (MW), or whatever, but the observer cannot manipulate quantum behaviour, particle position, state, polarity, etc, according to his or her act of will.

In monism the observer is the quantum behavior.

Your decisions and your will are performed by complex collections and interactions particles that act as an information processor, producing both consciousness and will not functioning in a way that is willed, this being the role of architecture/biology.

Again, you are taking the agent out of the system; that's duality, specifically parallelism.

 

[Juma]

That is dualism.

The former might be, but it is not necessarily mind body dualism. There are scientifically accepted forms of dualism, such as property dualism: wave/particle duality, fundamental particles having multiple intrinsic properties, hole argument, spacetime, etc.

And if control and agency are the same thing, then it is monistic.

No. If control and agency is the same thing then it is not really using the brain. You put all functionality of the mind (which is really what the brain provides) below neural level.

 

[Juma]

That is what experiments like the double slit and superposition have shown, that wave function distributed between two boxes (in superposition), once observed, a particle is present in one box but not the other, and remains a particle for all observers. But if not observed, both boxes display wave interference behaviour (double slit) and wave function/superposition remains distributed between the two boxes. The act of observation collapses wave function: Bells Inequality/Theorem, Clauser's initial experiments having been confirmed, reality and separability, etc, etc.

I was wondering why you said, "everything in the universe is composed of collapsed wave/particles". Did you mean to type something else?

Another interpretation being that wave function is not 'collapsing' but expressing particle position in an alternative world, the many worlds interpretation.

I will say the same thing with the MWI as any other indeterminate theory, it may be the agent who chooses the world which would appear random by another person.

Take your pick, or construct another interpretation, it makes no difference....the observer does indeed effect wave function collapse or expression (MW), or whatever, but the observer cannot manipulate quantum behaviour, particle position, state, polarity, etc, according to his or her act of will.

In monism the observer is the quantum behavior.

Your decisions and your will are performed by complex collections and interactions particles that act as an information processor, producing both consciousness and will not functioning in a way that is willed, this being the role of architecture/biology.

Again, you are taking the agent out of the system; that's duality, specifically parallelism.

No, he doesnt. What he describes IS the agent.

 

[ryan]

The former might be, but it is not necessarily mind body dualism. There are scientifically accepted forms of dualism, such as property dualism: wave/particle duality, fundamental particles having multiple intrinsic properties, hole argument, spacetime, etc.

And if control and agency are the same thing, then it is monistic.

You put all functionality of the mind (which is really what the brain provides) below neural level.

And why shouldn't I? After all, it certainly feels like I am making conscious choices. Like I said before, it feels very rare that I make a conscious choice. Most of the time I feel like I am on autopilot. But maybe a few times per hour I have to adjust the flight plan.

No. If control and agency is the same thing then it is not really using the brain.

The brain would be used to process the choice that is made.

 

[apeman]

There are key problems with the materialist view...as this thread demonstrates.

1) Materialists see correlation as proof of causation...whereas, it is clear that our "proof" of the nature of reality is thought dependent and that reality may well be the product of thought process alone. Materialists are usually obsessed with the fact that there is correlation between brain and mind and treat this as proof of their theory...whereas as I have pointed out , we may be "dreaming" of that particular correlation.

2) It is clear that the materialist view is not provable and is more complex than the thought only view...we do not need to prove the existence of thought...we know of it from direct experience.

3) We experience the sensation of freely choosing between available options. Materialists call this sensation a delusion...yet materialists trust this deluded organ (brain) to pronounce that they trust it with regard to the existence of mind independence. This kind of thinking is not logical.

4) The benefits of this particular idealism are that it fully accepts reality, a reality described by the consistency of the laws that govern it (rather than the idea that it is mind independent)... therefore science is still completely relevant and clearly useful. That acceptance of laws also extends into moral/aesthetic concerns. If the universe is mind product, then we are a separate, sub-set of it...it is worth considering what the "universe" wants from us morally and artistically.Basically this form of idealism requires the existence of a God....and the God concept has benefits over the no-God concept (moral/aesthetic truth).

 

[DBT]

Again, you are taking the agent out of the system; that's duality, specifically parallelism.

No, I'm not. I am describing agency from bottom to top, from Quantum randomness/wave function to the relationship between observer and the observed, wave function/particle position/ collapse or manifestation (MW), and macro scale structures such as biological systems which have evolved from wave function/particle position...which are composed of an interaction of fundamental particles but display deterministic properties that are not present on micro scales, superposition, etc.

 

[DBT]

There are key problems with the materialist view...as this thread demonstrates.

The world is a 'material' world- the question being what is the nature of this 'material' (matter/energy) and not that thought processes are 'non material' ... structural and chemical alterations to the brain effecting changes to perception/cognition/volition/ decision making in ways that are specific to changes in chemical balance or structure. In other words, consciousness/decision making/will is a material (matter/energy) process.

 

[apeman]

There are key problems with the materialist view...as this thread demonstrates.

The world is a 'material' world- the question being what is the nature of this 'material' (matter/energy) and not that thought processes are 'non material' ... structural and chemical alterations to the brain effecting changes to perception/cognition/volition/ decision making in ways that are specific to changes in chemical balance or structure. In other words, consciousness/decision making/will is a material (matter/energy) process.

I'm making the point that there may not be any such thing as mind independent material. I guess that the "material" you describe is such a thing...yes?

 

[4321lynx]

My point was that if you and I are only an illusion we cannot be holding that illusion ourselves. An illusion that holds an illusion sounds to me more like a delusion.

The illusion of free will stems from the disconnect between unconscious neural processes, which shape and form all conscious experience, and conscious experience that is aware of thoughts and decisions and urges to act, but is not aware of the unconscious production that is generating conscious experience of self and conscious decision making. In other words, it is not conscious self or consciousness that is performing the calculations behind decisions made, but the physical state of the system. The physical state of the system determining all experiences, decision, behaviours and motor actions.

Which is why many neuroscientists consider the term 'free will' to be irrelevant.

Conciousness is merely another expression of the physical state of the system; the system being the brain and its connections. So I agree with you and perhaps go even further along that physical path which you describe.
I agree that free will is in the final analysis an illusion, we are limited by the stste of the system to making what we fondly believe to be 'rational' choices.
But I thought, perhaps wrongly, that Speakpigeon in post 180 was saying that we, including our unconcious physical state and our very existence, and the universe, were an illusion. That is why I started talking about an illusion holding an illusion, God, and delusions.

Maybe our idea, interpretation, sensory experience of the universe and of ourselves is a false illusion, just as the very different idea, or at any rate experience of it must be to the dog, the bee, the migratory bird or whale, but an illusion held by another illusion? I cannot agree.

On rereading Speakpigeon's post, I seem to see that he did not say what I thought he said.

 

[Juma]

After all, it certainly feels like I am making conscious choices.

You also feel pain. Pain is created by the brain.

 

[fromderinside]

My point was that if you and I are only an illusion we cannot be holding that illusion ourselves. An illusion that holds an illusion sounds to me more like a delusion.

The illusion of free will stems from the disconnect between unconscious neural processes, which shape and form all conscious experience, and conscious experience that is aware of thoughts and decisions and urges to act, but is not aware of the unconscious production that is generating conscious experience of self and conscious decision making. In other words, it is not conscious self or consciousness that is performing the calculations behind decisions made, but the physical state of the system. The physical state of the system determining all experiences, decision, behaviours and motor actions.

Which is why many neuroscientists consider the term 'free will' to be irrelevant.

Trying to wrap metabolic stuff around subjective category stuff doesn't work. If one directs ones gaze toward something as the result of sensing it verified by appropriately sequenced metabolic indicators (oxygen uptake would be one), one might be said to be attending. The stuff between whether one is aware that one is attending is much more difficult to validate metabolically although many are trying.

The point of the above is that while one can tie attend to metabolic process one cannot tie consciousness to anything metabolically as yet. So a scientist has to assume that if another scientist is using consciousness and unconsciousness that scientist is using non-validated indicators. So not only do I find trouble with your conclusion about free will I find your entire analysis suspect. The previous goes to anyone else trying to describe consciousness in any way beyond either speculation, convention, or correlation.

Why now?

I'm tired of this traipsing across alternative definitions across divergent fields building rational (scientific) "cases" for the topic presented in the OP.

I accept apeman's description of his "case".

People may argue that we can not choose what we desire (our objectives), but this is a false understanding of the situation since it is clear that we all want what we think is best (for any given situation). It should also be clear to the wise mind that one should never just assume that one is right about what objectives one should have, one should accept that increased knowledge (born of imagination of ourselves and others) frees us from those prejudices that hold us back or mislead us.

His case is built around desire which he describes in optimums which he conditions with uncertainty in some idealistic paradigm which has 'reality' as a goal.

When we are through we should be able to agree on the meaning of desire based choice, situational best, desire based knowledge, desire based prejudices, and desire based direction.

To date I've seen none of these even remotely addressed. WTF is desire and upon what is it based for starters.
This should have been a psychological drill based on one theory of behavior ' Value theory'. It hasn't been that at all. Rather, its a repeating of philosophical interpretations on determinism by populi with a smattering of sciency materialism.

...stopping for now to give the rest of you time to reflect before I sally forth again into the realm of "simple explanations".

 

[ryan]

Again, you are taking the agent out of the system; that's duality, specifically parallelism.

No, I'm not. I am describing agency from bottom to top, from Quantum randomness/wave function to the relationship between observer and the observed, wave function/particle position/ collapse or manifestation (MW), and macro scale structures such as biological systems which have evolved from wave function/particle position...which are composed of an interaction of fundamental particles but display deterministic properties that are not present on micro scales, superposition, etc.

Okay, I misread your post.

 

[ryan]

After all, it certainly feels like I am making conscious choices.

You also feel pain. Pain is created by the brain.

Like I keep saying, 99% of the time we are puppets. We don't make conscious choices very often. Pain, like many other things, would be part of the deterministic machine. We try to think away pain, but it never works. Although, believe it or not, when I have a headache, I can sometimes think it away by thinking of Advil.

 

[Juma]

Pain, like many other things, would be part of the deterministic machine.

And so is the feeling that "you" are in charge.

 

[DBT]

The world is a 'material' world- the question being what is the nature of this 'material' (matter/energy) and not that thought processes are 'non material' ... structural and chemical alterations to the brain effecting changes to perception/cognition/volition/ decision making in ways that are specific to changes in chemical balance or structure. In other words, consciousness/decision making/will is a material (matter/energy) process.

I'm making the point that there may not be any such thing as mind independent material. I guess that the "material" you describe is such a thing...yes?

Something is mind independent, we cannot alter quantum rules by an act of mind, but only observe and act according to the rules. the evidence appears to show that matter/energy existed long before the advent of 'mind' - that is, before the evolution of minds of humans and other animals.....unless you mean the idea of 'Cosmic Mind' which collapsed wave function on a Universal scale, thereby forming the framework, stars, planets, etc, to enable the evolution of animal/human brains which collapse wave function in the sense of perceiving the solid appearing but ultimately virtual world of wave function/particles (wavicles) in conscious form? Is that what you mean? Or something else?

 

[DBT]

Trying to wrap metabolic stuff around subjective category stuff doesn't work.

Sure, it doesn't work. But in regard to the idea of 'free will' I'm not thinking of subjective stuff, but an actual attributes or abilities of neural networks/brains...which are physical systems producing actual calculations in the form of options weighed and taken (decisions), the options presented being related to actual physical states, to buy this or that, to marry him or her, to invest here or there....and the reason why compatibalism fails. It fails because it is a philosophical stance that does not work in relation actual states, brain functions and abilities...these being the sole source of self identity, thought and decision making with related actions (freely performed but not freely formed).

 

[ryan]

Pain, like many other things, would be part of the deterministic machine.

And so is the feeling that "you" are in charge.

Then what is in charge?

 

[Juma]

And so is the feeling that "you" are in charge.

Then what is in charge?

The brain. That is: the nervous system works lika a system and the "in charge"-stuff is a result of cooperation of many parts that bulds up structures many scales bigger than the particles that are its building bricks.

 

[ryan]

Then what is in charge?

The brain. That is: the nervous system works lika a system and the "in charge"-stuff is a result of cooperation of many parts that bulds up structures many scales bigger than the particles that are its building bricks.

But I am the conscious part of my brain. Wouldn't that influence what the rest of the brain does, which would be similar to how the rest of the brain influences me the consciousness?

 

[Juma]

<-->