Human freedom is constrained by the mind's content and physical ability

[rousseau]

Without getting into a circular debate about free-will I wanted to talk about the concept of our 'freedom', and particularly it's constraints.

I'd argue that we are free within the confines of:
- what our mind knows
- what our energy levels and ability allow us to do

So for the first point we are absolutely incapable of doing something that we have no concept of, and for the second point we can't do something which we are unable to do within the confines of our physical limits.

Is that it? Anything to add?

 

[DBT]

The hardware (physical structures, neural interconnections) and the software (perception/consciousness/memory function/parallel processing) shapes and forms both our experience and our response.

Given the functionality of both the hardware and the software, we are able to feel, think, make decisions and act accordingly (where circumstances allow), not free will, but mighty impressive abilities regardless.

 

[Bronzeage]

There's nothing you can do that can't be done
Nothing you can sing that can't be sung
Nothing you can say but you can learn how to play the game
It's easy

There's nothing you can make that can't be made
No one you can save that can't be saved
Nothing you can do but you can learn to be you in time
It's easy

All you need is love.


I make it a point to do something I have never conceived of, at least once a day.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Without getting into a circular debate about free-will I wanted to talk about the concept of our 'freedom', and particularly it's constraints.

I'd argue that we are free within the confines of:
- what our mind knows
- what our energy levels and ability allow us to do

So for the first point we are absolutely incapable of doing something that we have no concept of,

So either ALL animals are capable of conception or you are just wrong.

Ok, if you think a bacterium can entertain concepts then make it ALL living things are able to conceive or you are wrong.

Wait, why limit yourself to living things?

And why would we need to conceive anything before doing something, like falling from the rooftop or falling asleep. Sometimes my little finger twitches. Do you think a condition of that is that I have some concept in mind?

Or maybe you could rephrase.

and for the second point we can't do something which we are unable to do within the confines of our physical limits.

Is that it? Anything to add?

Energy levels and ability?! What kind of energy levels exactly? Do you mean glycogen in our muscles and liver? I guess you could say, "No freedom without glycogen!" If that, then we don't seem to need our bones, our nerves, our fat, our skin, etc. And by ability I suppose you mean what our muscles and brain can do when properly supplied in glycogen. QED.

That's really enlightening and entertaining at the same time, thanks.
EB

 

[Bomb#20]

 

[rousseau]

So either ALL animals are capable of conception or you are just wrong.

Ok, if you think a bacterium can entertain concepts then make it ALL living things are able to conceive or you are wrong.

Wait, why limit yourself to living things?

And why would we need to conceive anything before doing something, like falling from the rooftop or falling asleep. Sometimes my little finger twitches. Do you think a condition of that is that I have some concept in mind?

Or maybe you could rephrase.

and for the second point we can't do something which we are unable to do within the confines of our physical limits.

Is that it? Anything to add?

Energy levels and ability?! What kind of energy levels exactly? Do you mean glycogen in our muscles and liver? I guess you could say, "No freedom without glycogen!" If that, then we don't seem to need our bones, our nerves, our fat, our skin, etc. And by ability I suppose you mean what our muscles and brain can do when properly supplied in glycogen. QED.

That's really enlightening and entertaining at the same time, thanks.
EB

"We cannot do anything we have no concept of"

In other words, we're constrained by our conceptual understanding of the world. To give you some examples:

• If a person has never learned how to develop software, they do not have the ability to develop software
• If a person hasn't learned how to ride a bike, they can't ride a bike.
• If a person hasn't learned how to manage their diet, they cannot manage their diet.

Given, a person can still do those things if they've learned how to learn to do those things.

Still, we can generalize the proposition as: "If a person doesn't know of [x] they can't do [x].

You could get nit-picky and point out to me that these are all semantics, and of course people have the freedom to do the things I listed, but in reference to human freedom you can imagine that there is always a world of concepts, skills, etc that exist outside the content of a person's mind, and because of which they don't have the freedom to do those things. Their behaviour can only follow the patterns intrinsic to what they already know.

What you seemed to believe my meaning was, was that people *need* to conceive of something before they act. That's not my meaning. My meaning is that humans, specifically, are constrained by the sum total of their conceptual understanding of the world. Other life would be too, although because animals have no language their sum total understanding of the world is much smaller anyway. When you get to something like a bacterium, they are without nervous system and memory and so 'content of mind' is no longer relevant.

"We can't do something which we are unable to do within the confines of our physical limits."

This is a more obvious point and means exactly what you'd think it means.

Is my body physically incapable of movement or behaviour in any way? That's a constraint.

Is my net worth under the poverty line or extremely high? While we look at money as 'out there' in the world, it's actually representative of our energy storage. If we have low energy storage we are constrained by that.

 

[DBT]

Dilbert is great, but an intelligent, adaptive system such as a complex brain should be reasonably assumed to able to adapt to the conditions of its environment - if the system is functioning normally.

Hence the judicial system of deterrence through punishment.

The benefits of a realizable option being weighed against the consequences in order to acquire the perceived reward while minimizing risk.

 

[fromderinside]

Dilbert is great, but an intelligent, adaptive system such as a complex brain should be reasonably assumed to able to adapt to the conditions of its environment - if the system is functioning normally.

Hence the judicial system of deterrence through punishment.

The benefits of a realizable option being weighed against the consequences in order to acquire the perceived reward while minimizing risk.

If one looks closely one will find evolution is failing in complex organisms mainly due to generational modification demands vis a vis environment and social movement of elements in biosphere.

 

[Bronzeage]

Dilbert is great, but an intelligent, adaptive system such as a complex brain should be reasonably assumed to able to adapt to the conditions of its environment - if the system is functioning normally.

Hence the judicial system of deterrence through punishment.

The benefits of a realizable option being weighed against the consequences in order to acquire the perceived reward while minimizing risk.

If one looks closely one will find evolution is failing in complex organisms mainly due to generational modification demands vis a vis environment and social movement of elements in biosphere.

How does one measure failure of evolution?

 

[fromderinside]

If one looks closely one will find evolution is failing in complex organisms mainly due to generational modification demands vis a vis environment and social movement of elements in biosphere.

How does one measure failure of evolution?

Good question. Explicitly if life ends evolution failed. However one can look at relative change rates versus demands on existing genetic make up to suggest probable failure along particular lines. Seems to me our emotional makeup is a barrier to our move toward rationality and objective processing. Changes in behavior don't seem to be keeping up with social changes. Modelling is a lot of fun.

 

[untermensche]

Anything constructed from genes has huge limitations.

The human mind is constrained due to it's lowly origin.

There is much that no amount of human "will" can ever discover.

So it is more than what our mind knows.

It is what it is capable of knowing.

 

[ryan]

Without getting into a circular debate about free-will I wanted to talk about the concept of our 'freedom', and particularly it's constraints.

I'd argue that we are free within the confines of:
- what our mind knows
- what our energy levels and ability allow us to do

So for the first point we are absolutely incapable of doing something that we have no concept of, and for the second point we can't do something which we are unable to do within the confines of our physical limits.

Is that it? Anything to add?

The reality, according to science, is that things are not deterministic; impossible is meaningless. There may not be a causal reason for something to happen, so then what determines whether or not something is impossible?

 

[rousseau]

Without getting into a circular debate about free-will I wanted to talk about the concept of our 'freedom', and particularly it's constraints.

I'd argue that we are free within the confines of:
- what our mind knows
- what our energy levels and ability allow us to do

So for the first point we are absolutely incapable of doing something that we have no concept of, and for the second point we can't do something which we are unable to do within the confines of our physical limits.

Is that it? Anything to add?

The reality, according to science, is that things are not deterministic; impossible is meaningless. There may not be a causal reason for something to happen, so then what determines whether or not something is impossible?

Not sure I follow, but I don't know how you've determined that 'impossible is meaningless'.

The impossibility of action is relevant in the context of 'what we cannot do'. Human behaviour is not infinitely free and things that cause our inability to perform certain behaviours make those behaviours impossible.

Although, now that you've brought probability into the equation that makes for an interesting sidebar: legal/social rules make it less likely for certain actions to occur, which effectively make them impossible or with low probability.

 

[ryan]

The reality, according to science, is that things are not deterministic; impossible is meaningless. There may not be a causal reason for something to happen, so then what determines whether or not something is impossible?

Not sure I follow, but I don't know how you've determined that 'impossible is meaningless'.

If nobody can know what is possible and what is not for any given particle and thus the indeterminable complexity that arises from particles, then who or what could claim that something is impossible?

The impossibility of action is relevant in the context of 'what we cannot do'. Human behaviour is not infinitely free and things that cause our inability to perform certain behaviours make those behaviours impossible.

If this were the 1800's, then mainstream science would probably agree with you. They used to think that everything was determinable in that if you knew the state of the universe, you could know with perfect precision any future state. In other words the universe appeared to them to run like clock where only one future was certain to happen. Quantum mechanics came destroyed that.

Although, now that you've brought probability into the equation that makes for an interesting sidebar: legal/social rules make it less likely for certain actions to occur, which effectively make them impossible or with low probability.

I am only talking about the possibility of objective probabilities not human calculated ones.

What this comes down to is what this means for our thoughts and ideas and ultimately, as you said in the OP, what we "know". If I have some really small and rare butterfly-like-effects spawn from random events going on in my brain, imagine what that could mean for what and who we are - the original and creative mind. We will have thoughts and knowledge that just do not make sense from any possible prediction that comes from any theory.

We must believe that there is something else. We feel meaning, purpose, happiness, pain, etc. and the big ones: localized "wholeness" and "discreteness". The idea of wholeness should not come from discrete/quantized particles whether it is true or not. Strong emergence does not make sense in science as we know it.

There are other factors at work that we do not understand and that go outside of the Standard Model and the laws that govern it.

 

[bilby]

Not sure I follow, but I don't know how you've determined that 'impossible is meaningless'.

If nobody can know what is possible and what is not for any given particle and thus the indeterminable complexity that arises from particles, then who or what could claim that something is impossible?

Anybody who understands the probability of extremely small numbers. An event that has a one in a billion chance of occurring in the entire lifetime of the visible universe does not qualify as 'possible'. And many things are FAR less likely than that.

The impossibility of action is relevant in the context of 'what we cannot do'. Human behaviour is not infinitely free and things that cause our inability to perform certain behaviours make those behaviours impossible.

If this were the 1800's, then mainstream science would probably agree with you. They used to think that everything was determinable in that if you knew the state of the universe, you could know with perfect precision any future state. In other words the universe appeared to them to run like clock where only one future was certain to happen. Quantum mechanics came destroyed that.

Not really; Quantum mechanics shows why that is not true at the sub-microscopic level; and how, counter-intuitively, it nevertheless remains true enough at macroscopic scales to render the Newtonian model essentially correct.

Although, now that you've brought probability into the equation that makes for an interesting sidebar: legal/social rules make it less likely for certain actions to occur, which effectively make them impossible or with low probability.

I am only talking about the possibility of objective probabilities not human calculated ones.

That makes exactly zero sense, to within our ability to measure.

What this comes down to is what this means for our thoughts and ideas and ultimately, as you said in the OP, what we "know". If I have some really small and rare butterfly-like-effects spawn from random events going on in my brain, imagine what that could mean for what and who we are - the original and creative mind. We will have thoughts and knowledge that just do not make sense from any possible prediction that comes from any theory.

No, we won't. But we might like the idea that we will so much that we refuse to accept that we won't.

We must believe that there is something else.

No, we must not. We can, if we like; but if we do, we had better have some hard evidence to back our belief, or we will look like idiots in front of our better informed peers.

We feel meaning, purpose, happiness, pain, etc. and the big ones: localized "wholeness" and "discreteness". The idea of wholeness should not come from discrete/quantized particles whether it is true or not.

Why not?

Strong emergence does not make sense in science as we know it.

Why should anything make sense? It is either true, or untrue. 'sense' doesn't enter into it; 'sense' is just opening the door to the well known tendency of human brains to make shit up that has no basis in reality.

There are other factors at work that we do not understand and that go outside of the Standard Model and the laws that govern it.

Then I look forward to your Nobel Prize for building a perpetual motion machine.

Quantum Mechanics does not render everything possible, no matter how much people who want to keep that believing their impossible bullshit desires will come true might want it to.

 

[ryan]

If nobody can know what is possible and what is not for any given particle and thus the indeterminable complexity that arises from particles, then who or what could claim that something is impossible?

Anybody who understands the probability of extremely small numbers. An event that has a one in a billion chance of occurring in the entire lifetime of the visible universe does not qualify as 'possible'. And many things are FAR less likely than that.

Where did you get that number from? What are you talking about?

The impossibility of action is relevant in the context of 'what we cannot do'. Human behaviour is not infinitely free and things that cause our inability to perform certain behaviours make those behaviours impossible.

If this were the 1800's, then mainstream science would probably agree with you. They used to think that everything was determinable in that if you knew the state of the universe, you could know with perfect precision any future state. In other words the universe appeared to them to run like clock where only one future was certain to happen. Quantum mechanics came destroyed that.

Not really; Quantum mechanics shows why that is not true at the sub-microscopic level; and how, counter-intuitively, it nevertheless remains true enough at macroscopic scales to render the Newtonian model essentially correct.

Effects from QM magnify into the macroscopic world.

Although, now that you've brought probability into the equation that makes for an interesting sidebar: legal/social rules make it less likely for certain actions to occur, which effectively make them impossible or with low probability.

I am only talking about the possibility of objective probabilities not human calculated ones.

That makes exactly zero sense, to within our ability to measure.

Make sense of it, and you will understand my point.

What this comes down to is what this means for our thoughts and ideas and ultimately, as you said in the OP, what we "know". If I have some really small and rare butterfly-like-effects spawn from random events going on in my brain, imagine what that could mean for what and who we are - the original and creative mind. We will have thoughts and knowledge that just do not make sense from any possible prediction that comes from any theory.

No, we won't. But we might like the idea that we will so much that we refuse to accept that we won't.

We have been through this, and I have shown that QM brain activity is still very much on the table in brain science.

We must believe that there is something else.

No, we must not. We can, if we like; but if we do, we had better have some hard evidence to back our belief, or we will look like idiots in front of our better informed peers.

whatever

We feel meaning, purpose, happiness, pain, etc. and the big ones: localized "wholeness" and "discreteness". The idea of wholeness should not come from discrete/quantized particles whether it is true or not.

Why not?

I am not going to walk you through it; stay ignorant or read up, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties-emergent/#EpiEme .

Strong emergence does not make sense in science as we know it.

Why should anything make sense? It is either true, or untrue. 'sense' doesn't enter into it; 'sense' is just opening the door to the well known tendency of human brains to make shit up that has no basis in reality.

You want more than sense? You want truth? Wow!

There are other factors at work that we do not understand and that go outside of the Standard Model and the laws that govern it.

Then I look forward to your Nobel Prize for building a perpetual motion machine.

Quantum Mechanics does not render everything possible, no matter how much people who want to keep that believing their impossible bullshit desires will come true might want it to.

You have gotten stupider and more belligerent since I last read your posts.

 

[bilby]

Anybody who understands the probability of extremely small numbers. An event that has a one in a billion chance of occurring in the entire lifetime of the visible universe does not qualify as 'possible'. And many things are FAR less likely than that.

Where did you get that number from? What are you talking about?

The impossibility of action is relevant in the context of 'what we cannot do'. Human behaviour is not infinitely free and things that cause our inability to perform certain behaviours make those behaviours impossible.

If this were the 1800's, then mainstream science would probably agree with you. They used to think that everything was determinable in that if you knew the state of the universe, you could know with perfect precision any future state. In other words the universe appeared to them to run like clock where only one future was certain to happen. Quantum mechanics came destroyed that.

Not really; Quantum mechanics shows why that is not true at the sub-microscopic level; and how, counter-intuitively, it nevertheless remains true enough at macroscopic scales to render the Newtonian model essentially correct.

Effects from QM magnify into the macroscopic world.

Although, now that you've brought probability into the equation that makes for an interesting sidebar: legal/social rules make it less likely for certain actions to occur, which effectively make them impossible or with low probability.

I am only talking about the possibility of objective probabilities not human calculated ones.

That makes exactly zero sense, to within our ability to measure.

Make sense of it, and you will understand my point.

What this comes down to is what this means for our thoughts and ideas and ultimately, as you said in the OP, what we "know". If I have some really small and rare butterfly-like-effects spawn from random events going on in my brain, imagine what that could mean for what and who we are - the original and creative mind. We will have thoughts and knowledge that just do not make sense from any possible prediction that comes from any theory.

No, we won't. But we might like the idea that we will so much that we refuse to accept that we won't.

We have been through this, and I have shown that QM brain activity is still very much on the table in brain science.

We must believe that there is something else.

No, we must not. We can, if we like; but if we do, we had better have some hard evidence to back our belief, or we will look like idiots in front of our better informed peers.

whatever

We feel meaning, purpose, happiness, pain, etc. and the big ones: localized "wholeness" and "discreteness". The idea of wholeness should not come from discrete/quantized particles whether it is true or not.

Why not?

I am not going to walk you through it; stay ignorant or read up, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties-emergent/#EpiEme .

Strong emergence does not make sense in science as we know it.

Why should anything make sense? It is either true, or untrue. 'sense' doesn't enter into it; 'sense' is just opening the door to the well known tendency of human brains to make shit up that has no basis in reality.

You want more than sense? You want truth? Wow!

There are other factors at work that we do not understand and that go outside of the Standard Model and the laws that govern it.

Then I look forward to your Nobel Prize for building a perpetual motion machine.

Quantum Mechanics does not render everything possible, no matter how much people who want to keep that believing their impossible bullshit desires will come true might want it to.

You have gotten stupider and more belligerent since I last read your posts.

No, just less tolerant of bullshit.

 

[fromderinside]

No, just less tolerant of bullshit.

Observation. Apparent signs of aging bilby answered ryan.

 

[DBT]

Without getting into a circular debate about free-will I wanted to talk about the concept of our 'freedom', and particularly it's constraints.

I'd argue that we are free within the confines of:
- what our mind knows
- what our energy levels and ability allow us to do

So for the first point we are absolutely incapable of doing something that we have no concept of, and for the second point we can't do something which we are unable to do within the confines of our physical limits.

Is that it? Anything to add?

The reality, according to science, is that things are not deterministic; impossible is meaningless. There may not be a causal reason for something to happen, so then what determines whether or not something is impossible?

Neither way favours of 'free will' (a poorly defined concept at best), you don't get to choose whatever happens to pop up unexpectedly, non determinism, nor can you effect the process of determinism through an act of will. Physics of scale. The macro world is deterministic, the micro world does what it does regardless of our desires.

 

[ryan]

The reality, according to science, is that things are not deterministic; impossible is meaningless. There may not be a causal reason for something to happen, so then what determines whether or not something is impossible?

Neither way favours of 'free will' (a poorly defined concept at best), you don't get to choose whatever happens to pop up unexpectedly, non determinism, nor can you effect the process of determinism through an act of will. Physics of scale. The macro world is deterministic, the micro world does what it does regardless of our desires.

But this isn't about free will, which I thought I made a good enough case for being possible. This is about something less specific. This is about what our mind can know as I interpreted the OP to mean.

Regarding the randomness that you and I were arguing about, I had to show that randomness may exist in the consciousness. But rousseau is wondering about freedom within different parts of the brain that may lead to what I would call knowledge from within. "Physical limits" or impossibilities is practically meaningless with the possibility of QM lurking in the brain.