Human Instinct and Free Will

[Speakpigeon]

So?

But all we really know, in terms of a "mind", is ourselves.

And when I move my finger at "will" there is no coercion. Nothing is forcing me to do it. It is appropriate to external circumstance not some activity in the brain.

That is just "by will". Why bother with "free"?

It is my will, not that of the universe. I think that's the idea. I move my finger because I want to (it works or it doesn't; it's true that my finger moves as a result or it's not true; but I want to move it and it's me who wants that, not the universe, not reality outside myself, whatever definition of "myself" you want to choose.)
EB

 

[Malintent]

If you truly have free will, then you can decide to climb to the top of a building, and fly off of it.
Can you do that? No? Then your will is less than free.

Obviously, we are bound by the laws of the universe we inhabit.
and we are bound by the gravity of our planet
and we are bound by the laws of our country
and we are bound by the norms of our culture
and we are bound by the chemistry in our brains
and we are bound by the resources to which we have access
and we are bound by our principles and our prejudices
and we are bound by our drives and our reflexes

where the fuck is freedom at all?

oh yea. I can choose to wiggle my finger.. but only if someone suggests it.. .because I never have just thought to wiggle my finger before for no fucking reason whatsoever.

Freedom my ass.

Janis Joplin said it best, "Freedom is just another word for nothing-left-to-lose"

 

[untermensche]

If you truly have free will, then you can decide to climb to the top of a building, and fly off of it.
Can you do that? No? Then your will is less than free.

Obviously, we are bound by the laws of the universe we inhabit.
and we are bound by the gravity of our planet
and we are bound by the laws of our country
and we are bound by the norms of our culture
and we are bound by the chemistry in our brains
and we are bound by the resources to which we have access
and we are bound by our principles and our prejudices
and we are bound by our drives and our reflexes

where the fuck is freedom at all?

oh yea. I can choose to wiggle my finger.. but only if someone suggests it.. .because I never have just thought to wiggle my finger before for no fucking reason whatsoever.

Freedom my ass.

Janis Joplin said it best, "Freedom is just another word for nothing-left-to-lose"

If somebody asks you to move your finger you are free to move it.

Or free to not move it.

The choice is yours.

We are not bound by suggestions of others. That is a desperate reach and clearly wrong.

Absurd.

 

[Treedbear]

The difficulty, untermensche, is that you believe you have, though your grounds for this belief are, as far as I can see, a matter of faith, not fact.

...
I am claiming I can move my finger by "willing" it. Move it by wanting it to move.

Which is an observation.

But correlation does not imply causation:

"Correlation does not imply causation" is a phrase used in statistics to emphasize that a correlation between two variables does not imply that one causes the other. ...

The counter-assumption, that "correlation proves causation," is considered a questionable cause logical fallacy in that two events occurring together are taken to have a cause-and-effect relationship. ...

The questionable part is at what point does the desire get transformed into action? Do desires just pop out of nowhere fully fledged? Or do they kind of evolve, either waxing or waning? In the latter case there must be some process behind it. That implies a complexity similar to standard neurological processes. To whittle it all down to a single cause such as a desire seems like an over simplification. It might qualify as the end result but it's more like a milestone than a motivation.

 

[untermensche]

...
I am claiming I can move my finger by "willing" it. Move it by wanting it to move.

Which is an observation.

But correlation does not imply causation:

"Correlation does not imply causation" is a phrase used in statistics to emphasize that a correlation between two variables does not imply that one causes the other. ...

The counter-assumption, that "correlation proves causation," is considered a questionable cause logical fallacy in that two events occurring together are taken to have a cause-and-effect relationship. ...

The questionable part is at what point does the desire get transformed into action? Do desires just pop out of nowhere fully fledged? Or do they kind of evolve, either waxing or waning? In the latter case there must be some process behind it. That implies a complexity similar to standard neurological processes. To whittle it all down to a single cause such as a desire seems like an over simplification. It might qualify as the end result but it's more like a milestone than a motivation.

Since the movement happens exactly as I "will" it and in the manner in which I "will" it, it would be absurd to claim it was not my "will" that moved it.

That is not in doubt.

What is in doubt is why the mind "willed" it.

Some want to claim the mind "willed" it because the brain somehow "willed" the mind to "will" it. The brain has some "will" of it's own and it tricks the mind into thinking the mind has "will".

The theory of the Big Trick.

A theory with no evidence or rational argument to support it.

 

[ryan]

I'm sure I'm ignoring something.

But if you actually opened your eyes and looked around you would realize that many question the conclusions, not evidence, you're peddling.

You and others are looking at activity in the brain and assigning a specific function to it without the slightest idea what the activity is actually doing.

You have no idea how brain activity translates into consciousness yet you want to pretend you do.

It is not science.

You shouldn't be mentioning science considering that it you who completely ignores the science and base your assertions on subjective experience.

Nobody disputes the fact that we can move our fingers at will, or engage in hand waving like you....but this ignores the mechanisms by which we first feel the impulse to move and the motor action of movement.

The latter is what you studiously ignore, just to repeat the former, which nobody is disputing.

Here's a primer...not that it'll help you understand. You don't want to learn.

Abstract
''Are we in command of our motor acts?The popular belief holds that our conscious decisions are the direct causes of our actions. However, overwhelming evidence from neurosciences demonstrates that our actions are instead largely driven by brain processes that unfold outside of our consciousness''


Introduction

''In daily life, we usually have the feeling that we are the authors of the actions we make, that the decisions we make and the corresponding movements we perform are consciously initiated and controlled. The belief that our actions are caused by our mental states, and these mental states are causally independent from brain processes reflects a dualistic philosophy (Descartes, 1641). However, the current scientific view holds that human actions and mental states are both biologically determined and stem from patterns of neural activity in the brain.''

Voluntary action is unconsciously generated

''The idea that intention is a direct translation of desires and goals into behavior is deeply embedded in our culture. But it is supported by experimental evidence? That is the question which interested Benjamin Libet 30 years ago (Libet et al., 1983). In his pioneer experiment, participants were asked to make a voluntary movement at will and to report the exact time on a clock at the instant they had decided to move, while their readiness potential, a change in electroencephalography (EEG) activity over the motor cortex that occurs prior to voluntary movement, was being recorded. The results showed that the preparatory motor activity began more than 350 ms before subjects became aware of the decision to act. More recently, Soon et al. (2008) used a brain decoding statistical method to show that an action could be predicted by blood-oxygen-level-dependent functional magnetic resonance imaging (BOLD fMRI) signal. Although the volunteers felt they consciously decided to move, the vector machine could classify the outcome of their decision by means of the activity in several cortical regions, such as the precuneus and the fronto-polar cortex, up to a few seconds before the decision to move entered awareness, while the activity in the supplementary motor area (SMA) determined the timing of that decision.''

DBT, if you are truly using science as a guide, then you should accept the more successful theories of cognitive science that allow free will by definition. But we have been through that already, so let me bring up another window for free will that science has somewhat recently opened.

Imagine the multiverse. Inside the multiverse, there are a finite or an infinite number of universes. Imagine that this multiverse exists on a 2 dimensional plane where all possible universes reside. Depending on the physical laws of each universe, each universe runs a course that would appear as just a randomly drawn scribble on the paper. The length of the scribble tells us how long the universe existed for.

Now think about possible intersections of these "scribbles". Two different universes coming from different pasts and having different futures will momentarily look identical at the intersection P. At point P is where the feeling of agency might reside as the consciousness makes a choice as to which future it wants. At point P is where a superposition of two branching vectors of the universes cross over. Of course the superposition collapses once it leaves the point. And yes this leaves no time to make a choice, but then again all choices are made in a point in time anyways even though they might be rethought very soon after.

So my point is that if the multiverse is true, in certain conditions, then we can choose our paths without breaking any physical laws.

 

[Treedbear]

... Of course the superposition collapses once it leaves the point. And yes this leaves no time to make a choice, but then again all choices are made in a point in time anyways even though they might be rethought very soon after.

So my point is that if the multiverse is true, in certain conditions, then we can choose our paths without breaking any physical laws.

So is there a conscious self in both of the colliding universes? Do they swap universes, co-habitate the same body in one or the other, or is there only one universe that contains conscious beings? Or is this universe especially for me and everyone else in it is a zombie? It seems MWI might accomodate the latter. And it just feels kind of right. Sorry about that.

 

[ryan]

... Of course the superposition collapses once it leaves the point. And yes this leaves no time to make a choice, but then again all choices are made in a point in time anyways even though they might be rethought very soon after.

So my point is that if the multiverse is true, in certain conditions, then we can choose our paths without breaking any physical laws.

So is there a conscious self in both of the colliding universes?

Yes, each is a unique conscious self until they merge at some point in time. There is a point where they become one in that they are the same thing.

It seems MWI might accomodate the latter. And it just feels kind of right. Sorry about that.

My idea is actually quite different than MWI.

Anyways, why does everyone else have to be a zombie in MWI?

 

[DBT]

You are a broken record.

You keep trying to pass this mythology off as science.

Libet did not think his experiment said a thing about "will" nor did it explain anything about consciousness or conscious movement.

Unexplained brain activity, really cellular activity, can never be more than unexplained brain activity.

Despite your mythology.

I could do an experiment that I know you would fail miserably.

I could show you scan after brain scan and ask you what the person was doing or thinking.

And you will never be able to tell me.

Because all you have is a mythology and no real understanding of what brain activity is.

Still missing the point entirely.

Completely ignoring what the researchers themselves are saying. Completely ignoring what the evidence supports.

Completely ignoring the nature of physics, that mind/consciousness is a process that has a sequence beginning with information input via the senses, processing, correlation with memory enabling recognition, etc, and that thought, deliberation (mind) and motor action follow that sequence....that not only mind is shaped and formed by that activity in that sequence in time but the actions that follow. You are proposing some form of magical mind.

You are not the one to talk about a broken record. Just look in the mirror.

Libet did not think his experiment said a thing about "will" nor did it explain anything about consciousness or conscious movement.

Just shows your poor level of understanding of the subject matter....Libet himself proposed a 'veto function' in an attempt to rescue free will.

 

[DBT]

You shouldn't be mentioning science considering that it you who completely ignores the science and base your assertions on subjective experience.

Nobody disputes the fact that we can move our fingers at will, or engage in hand waving like you....but this ignores the mechanisms by which we first feel the impulse to move and the motor action of movement.

The latter is what you studiously ignore, just to repeat the former, which nobody is disputing.

Here's a primer...not that it'll help you understand. You don't want to learn.

Abstract
''Are we in command of our motor acts?The popular belief holds that our conscious decisions are the direct causes of our actions. However, overwhelming evidence from neurosciences demonstrates that our actions are instead largely driven by brain processes that unfold outside of our consciousness''


Introduction

''In daily life, we usually have the feeling that we are the authors of the actions we make, that the decisions we make and the corresponding movements we perform are consciously initiated and controlled. The belief that our actions are caused by our mental states, and these mental states are causally independent from brain processes reflects a dualistic philosophy (Descartes, 1641). However, the current scientific view holds that human actions and mental states are both biologically determined and stem from patterns of neural activity in the brain.''

Voluntary action is unconsciously generated

''The idea that intention is a direct translation of desires and goals into behavior is deeply embedded in our culture. But it is supported by experimental evidence? That is the question which interested Benjamin Libet 30 years ago (Libet et al., 1983). In his pioneer experiment, participants were asked to make a voluntary movement at will and to report the exact time on a clock at the instant they had decided to move, while their readiness potential, a change in electroencephalography (EEG) activity over the motor cortex that occurs prior to voluntary movement, was being recorded. The results showed that the preparatory motor activity began more than 350 ms before subjects became aware of the decision to act. More recently, Soon et al. (2008) used a brain decoding statistical method to show that an action could be predicted by blood-oxygen-level-dependent functional magnetic resonance imaging (BOLD fMRI) signal. Although the volunteers felt they consciously decided to move, the vector machine could classify the outcome of their decision by means of the activity in several cortical regions, such as the precuneus and the fronto-polar cortex, up to a few seconds before the decision to move entered awareness, while the activity in the supplementary motor area (SMA) determined the timing of that decision.''

DBT, if you are truly using science as a guide, then you should accept the more successful theories of cognitive science that allow free will by definition. But we have been through that already, so let me bring up another window for free will that science has somewhat recently opened.

Imagine the multiverse. Inside the multiverse, there are a finite or an infinite number of universes. Imagine that this multiverse exists on a 2 dimensional plane where all possible universes reside. Depending on the physical laws of each universe, each universe runs a course that would appear as just a randomly drawn scribble on the paper. The length of the scribble tells us how long the universe existed for.

Now think about possible intersections of these "scribbles". Two different universes coming from different pasts and having different futures will momentarily look identical at the intersection P. At point P is where the feeling of agency might reside as the consciousness makes a choice as to which future it wants. At point P is where a superposition of two branching vectors of the universes cross over. Of course the superposition collapses once it leaves the point. And yes this leaves no time to make a choice, but then again all choices are made in a point in time anyways even though they might be rethought very soon after.

So my point is that if the multiverse is true, in certain conditions, then we can choose our paths without breaking any physical laws.

Doesn't work. Sorry.

You don't get to choose wave expression.

You can't effect quantum probability through an act of will.

You don't choose the conditions of your particular 'universe' within the multiverse. The mere act of observation does not alter the flow of events in your favour, not in any way that you desire or hope.

 

[ryan]

DBT, if you are truly using science as a guide, then you should accept the more successful theories of cognitive science that allow free will by definition. But we have been through that already, so let me bring up another window for free will that science has somewhat recently opened.

Imagine the multiverse. Inside the multiverse, there are a finite or an infinite number of universes. Imagine that this multiverse exists on a 2 dimensional plane where all possible universes reside. Depending on the physical laws of each universe, each universe runs a course that would appear as just a randomly drawn scribble on the paper. The length of the scribble tells us how long the universe existed for.

Now think about possible intersections of these "scribbles". Two different universes coming from different pasts and having different futures will momentarily look identical at the intersection P. At point P is where the feeling of agency might reside as the consciousness makes a choice as to which future it wants. At point P is where a superposition of two branching vectors of the universes cross over. Of course the superposition collapses once it leaves the point. And yes this leaves no time to make a choice, but then again all choices are made in a point in time anyways even though they might be rethought very soon after.

So my point is that if the multiverse is true, in certain conditions, then we can choose our paths without breaking any physical laws.

Doesn't work. Sorry.

You don't get to choose wave expression.

You can't effect quantum probability through an act of will.

You don't choose the conditions of your particular 'universe' within the multiverse. The mere act of observation does not alter the flow of events in your favour, not in any way that you desire or hope.

This is not about wave expressions or quantum probabilities; it's about questioning why I am conscious in this universe and not another in the case of a multiverse.

 

[DBT]

This is not about wave expressions or quantum probabilities; it's about questioning why I am conscious in this universe and not another in the case of a multiverse.

If the multiverse model is true, it is about wave expression across all possible 'universes' - if a version of 'you' exists in a million of them, each and every version of you can ask the very same question: ''why am I conscious in this universe?''

A million ryan's asking the same question, or every possible variation of the question.

 

[iolo]

The difficulty, untermensche, is that you believe you have, though your grounds for this belief are, as far as I can see, a matter of faith, not fact.

You have not made a coherent point.

I am not claiming I can divine intentions from crude brain scans of some aspects, not all, of brain activity. That is a modern mythology.

The mythology of: We don't have a clue how brain activity translates to consciousness but we know everything brain activity is doing when we see it.

I am claiming I can move my finger by "willing" it. Move it by wanting it to move.

Which is an observation.

That. All the evidence I've ever heard of suggests the muscular activity begins long before the conscious decision.

 

[untermensche]

You have not made a coherent point.

I am not claiming I can divine intentions from crude brain scans of some aspects, not all, of brain activity. That is a modern mythology.

The mythology of: We don't have a clue how brain activity translates to consciousness but we know everything brain activity is doing when we see it.

I am claiming I can move my finger by "willing" it. Move it by wanting it to move.

Which is an observation.

That. All the evidence I've ever heard of suggests the muscular activity begins long before the conscious decision.

It is about 2 tenths of a second, not a long time. Some researchers even say less time.

And it is not before a conscious decision, nobody knows when that occurs.

It is after subjective reporting of some undefined mental state of "initiation".

The whole matter is about as clear as mud and as I say it involves subjective reporting not objective evidence.

 

[ryan]

This is not about wave expressions or quantum probabilities; it's about questioning why I am conscious in this universe and not another in the case of a multiverse.

If the multiverse model is true, it is about wave expression across all possible 'universes' - if a version of 'you' exists in a million of them, each and every version of you can ask the very same question: ''why am I conscious in this universe?''

A million ryan's asking the same question, or every possible variation of the question.

I mean that my idea is not about wave expressions. It's about physical freedom to choose a universe.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse in what Max Tegmark calls a "Level 1" multiverse, there will be universes identical to ours possibly 10^10^115 meters away. But let's just think about a universe that momentarily looks exactly like ours. For that moment, my consciousness exists in all of these similar universes. Now the only thing that I am hesitant about is saying that my consciousness is in a superposition for that moment.

Anyways, there are possibly an infinite number of universes that are given for me to choose from. The selection process is not determined but free.

 

[DBT]

If the multiverse model is true, it is about wave expression across all possible 'universes' - if a version of 'you' exists in a million of them, each and every version of you can ask the very same question: ''why am I conscious in this universe?''

A million ryan's asking the same question, or every possible variation of the question.

I mean that my idea is not about wave expressions. It's about physical freedom to choose a universe.

That is inseparable from wave expression across multiple universes. If you can choose a universe, you must be able to effect changes in wave expression across universes. Here but not there, etc.

Anyways, there are possibly an infinite number of universes that are given for me to choose from. The selection process is not determined but free.

Do you really believe that you consciously chose the universe you were born into? That you consciously chose your genealogy, your culture, language, life circumstances, etc....which shape and form your body, mind and character, which in turn shape and form how you see the world around you and how you think and decide? Do you really believe that you chose all of this?

If you do, can you explain how this was achieved?

 

[Treedbear]

So is there a conscious self in both of the colliding universes?

Yes, each is a unique conscious self until they merge at some point in time. There is a point where they become one in that they are the same thing.

It seems MWI might accomodate the latter. And it just feels kind of right. Sorry about that.

My idea is actually quite different than MWI.

Sorry. I assumed that when you proposed multiverses that cross paths in such a way that they are in superposition (and I also assume that means identical states) then they must have had some common origin. How else could such a situation arise than via MWI? The probability is too low without it. If would be helpful if you could provide a link to a reference that better explains this theory.

Anyways, why does everyone else have to be a zombie in MWI?

It's just one possibility if we're dealing with MWI. There'd be plenty of universes to go around. And if lots of people think only humans are truly conscious and have agency, then why stop there? If we don't even know what it is then why insist that any other person possesses it besides one's self? At any rate, you're talking about two different conscious beings existing at the same time before and after they meet at point P. If a free choice can be made by each of them where they intersect then both must move to one or the other, since they are the same at that moment. The other universe is thus left with a zombie. So after a while you could end up having a universe that was devoid of all conscious beings.

 

[Treedbear]

But correlation does not imply causation:

"Correlation does not imply causation" is a phrase used in statistics to emphasize that a correlation between two variables does not imply that one causes the other. ...

The counter-assumption, that "correlation proves causation," is considered a questionable cause logical fallacy in that two events occurring together are taken to have a cause-and-effect relationship. ...

The questionable part is at what point does the desire get transformed into action? Do desires just pop out of nowhere fully fledged? Or do they kind of evolve, either waxing or waning? In the latter case there must be some process behind it. That implies a complexity similar to standard neurological processes. To whittle it all down to a single cause such as a desire seems like an over simplification. It might qualify as the end result but it's more like a milestone than a motivation.

Since the movement happens exactly as I "will" it and in the manner in which I "will" it, it would be absurd to claim it was not my "will" that moved it.

That is not in doubt.

What is in doubt is why the mind "willed" it.

Some want to claim the mind "willed" it because the brain somehow "willed" the mind to "will" it. The brain has some "will" of it's own and it tricks the mind into thinking the mind has "will".

The theory of the Big Trick.

A theory with no evidence or rational argument to support it.

I take your point. The will necessarily precedes the action and so is not exactly coincident with it. Nevertheless there is room for the possibility that the will isn't what causes the action but merely an attempt at predicting the action that might occur, given an intimate knowledge of one's internal state and a data base of past experience. It's been demonstrated that the subconscious mind makes a lot of assumptions, especially concerning things that one is routinely aware of. The reason this makes sense is that this is what the brain does all the time. It creates models of the things in its environment almost entirely subconsciously and unconsciously. So why shouldn't there also be a model of the Self for the same purpose? The "mind" is thus a symbol for how the various areas of the brain interact, and the "will" symbolizes how the brain interacts with the body, and through it, the external environment. It's not a "big trick" anymore than is the way we have of comprehending the rest of reality (notwithstanding Idealism).

 

[ryan]

I mean that my idea is not about wave expressions. It's about physical freedom to choose a universe.

That is inseparable from wave expression across multiple universes. If you can choose a universe, you must be able to effect changes in wave expression across universes. Here but not there, etc.

If universe A = universe B at some point in time, with each sharing the time and spatial dimensions, I wonder if it is logical to say that I am in both universes. And if so, then I would be in the universe that I chose but would also be in the universe that I did not choose. This does allow free will, but I have to "make up" for that choice with having to live in the unchosen universe too.

Anyways, there are possibly an infinite number of universes that are given for me to choose from. The selection process is not determined but free.

Do you really believe that you consciously chose the universe you were born into? That you consciously chose your genealogy, your culture, language, life circumstances, etc....which shape and form your body, mind and character, which in turn shape and form how you see the world around you and how you think and decide? Do you really believe that you chose all of this?

If you do, can you explain how this was achieved?

Think about what freedom, choice and I really mean. If you take those 3 concepts for what they really are with no magical connotations, you will see that they are very much possible. The "I" makes choices. Choices may not be restricted to one but might freely be any of a certain number of possibilities.

 

[ryan]

My idea is actually quite different than MWI.

Sorry. I assumed that when you proposed multiverses that cross paths in such a way that they are in superposition (and I also assume that means identical states) then they must have had some common origin. How else could such a situation arise than via MWI? The probability is too low without it. If would be helpful if you could provide a link to a reference that better explains this theory.

There does not need to be a common origin to end up with identical universes.

Anyways, why does everyone else have to be a zombie in MWI?

It's just one possibility if we're dealing with MWI. There'd be plenty of universes to go around. And if lots of people think only humans are truly conscious and have agency, then why stop there? If we don't even know what it is then why insist that any other person possesses it besides one's self? At any rate, you're talking about two different conscious beings existing at the same time before and after they meet at point P. If a free choice can be made by each of them where they intersect then both must move to one or the other, since they are the same at that moment. The other universe is thus left with a zombie. So after a while you could end up having a universe that was devoid of all conscious beings.

I still don't understand why this zombie idea needs MWI; can't there be zombies in a single universe?

Regarding the conscious identity of the other person, it is a tricky thing for me to figure out. The intersection of the two Ryan's is strange. Does my identity only exist in a straight line through time like a 4 dimensional snake, or can we say that the snake is more like a four point star fish where the intersection unifies a single Ryan.