Human Instinct and Free Will

[Treedbear]

...
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.

Zombie's are just one result I considered with the intersecting universe scenario.

I favor the snake as an epistemological metaphor symbolizing the continuity of existence. The starfish works as an ontological symbol for the inter-relational nature of existence. I think that "I have, therefore I am" is more metaphysically correct than "I think, therefore I am". (No that's not a contradiction. Thoughts are something that I have. They are not me, they are mine.)

 

[untermensche]

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).

The question becomes why?

We know why the mind moves the finger, because it wants to. The mind can do some things on a whim.

But why would the brain move it? Why would the brain suddenly have this whim to move the finger?

The brain has no idea there is an external world. The brain may produce ideas that the mind comprehends but the brain does not have ideas. Only the mind knows about the world.

It makes no sense.

 

[Juma]

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).

The question becomes why?

We know why the mind moves the finger, because it wants to. The mind can do some things on a whim.

But why would the brain move it? Why would the brain suddenly have this whim to move the finger?

The brain has no idea there is an external world. The brain may produce ideas that the mind comprehends but the brain does not have ideas. Only the mind knows about the world.

It makes no sense.

The brain is doing all this. The brain is making your mind.

 

[DBT]

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.

But you haven't actually shown that you can choose the 'universe' you desire, yet alone your genetic makeup, culture, family, health, physical characteristics, gender, aptitudes, etc.

Within the context of a multiverse, there may be countless ryans in countless different mental and physical and emotional states and conditions, all self conscious and all completely unaware of each other. And each and every ryan experiencing their world according to their own situation and state...

 

[untermensche]

The question becomes why?

We know why the mind moves the finger, because it wants to. The mind can do some things on a whim.

But why would the brain move it? Why would the brain suddenly have this whim to move the finger?

The brain has no idea there is an external world. The brain may produce ideas that the mind comprehends but the brain does not have ideas. Only the mind knows about the world.

It makes no sense.

The brain is doing all this. The brain is making your mind.

This is a meaningless statement that doesn't address the underlying point.

It is the mind that has learned throughout life and has a conception of the world.

The brain does not have this. The brain merely responds to stimuli and runs according to it's genetic and experiential makeup. It has no overall conception of anything.

The brain creates the color blue for the mind to be aware of. The mind is aware of the color blue, not the brain.

So the question remains: Why would the brain that has no overall conception of the world move the finger randomly?

It is not as simple as saying "The brain does everything". That is a pretense to an explanation. Pretending to have an explanation.

 

[ryan]

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.

But you haven't actually shown that you can choose the 'universe' you desire, yet alone your genetic makeup, culture, family, health, physical characteristics, gender, aptitudes, etc.

Within the context of a multiverse, there may be countless ryans in countless different mental and physical and emotional states and conditions, all self conscious and all completely unaware of each other. And each and every ryan experiencing their world according to their own situation and state...

Okay, forget that. It's getting too close to Hume's arguments for compatibilism, and I personally don't like them.

I strongly maintain that as far as the definition of free will goes, we certainly have it if A) the quantum cognition models are correct; and B) the actual working model of quantum cognition is correct.

 

[DBT]

But you haven't actually shown that you can choose the 'universe' you desire, yet alone your genetic makeup, culture, family, health, physical characteristics, gender, aptitudes, etc.

Within the context of a multiverse, there may be countless ryans in countless different mental and physical and emotional states and conditions, all self conscious and all completely unaware of each other. And each and every ryan experiencing their world according to their own situation and state...

Okay, forget that. It's getting too close to Hume's arguments for compatibilism, and I personally don't like them.

I strongly maintain that as far as the definition of free will goes, we certainly have it if A) the quantum cognition models are correct; and B) the actual working model of quantum cognition is correct.

How does quantum cognition allow anything but random events to creep into the decision making process, which means processing coherent information related to macro scale objects and events?

 

[ryan]

Okay, forget that. It's getting too close to Hume's arguments for compatibilism, and I personally don't like them.

I strongly maintain that as far as the definition of free will goes, we certainly have it if A) the quantum cognition models are correct; and B) the actual working model of quantum cognition is correct.

How does quantum cognition allow anything but random events to creep into the decision making process, which means processing coherent information related to macro scale objects and events?

First off, and most importantly, an agent could have chosen differently.

A model of the outside world may give an option for a rational decision or an irrational decision. Presumably there would be a mechanism in a quantum superposition that would lead to one of the options. This might be conscious decision-making that is deeply entangled in with the two options. Through entanglement, these four entities may have a whole/singular property of agency.

It at least strongly feels like the consciousness partly becomes its choices as it is mostly preoccupied by them.

 

[DBT]

How does quantum cognition allow anything but random events to creep into the decision making process, which means processing coherent information related to macro scale objects and events?

First off, and most importantly, an agent could have chosen differently.

That doesn't relate to quantum probability, which neither subject to will or choice. We can't change probabilistic outcomes by an act of will alone. Decisions are related to orders of scale above quantum.

A model of the outside world may give an option for a rational decision or an irrational decision. Presumably there would be a mechanism in a quantum superposition that would lead to one of the options. This might be conscious decision-making that is deeply entangled in with the two options. Through entanglement, these four entities may have a whole/singular property of agency.

It at least strongly feels like the consciousness partly becomes its choices as it is mostly preoccupied by them.

Entanglement? I prefer chocolate over vanilla ice cream...so I would never choose vanilla. What does this have to do with quantum states?

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

Can you stop me from thinking you're a jackass? No you can't! So until you do I'm free to enjoy that little bit of free thinking.

Free doesn't mean almighty. I'm free to wiggle my little finger as long as nobody put it in some sort of cast. Yet, even then, I would be free to try to wiggle my little finger, or even free to think about doing it even though I could not actually do it.

God would be something else. There would be no limit to His freedom to do things. Unlimited free-will if you like.

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

Bless her soul.

You're forgiven.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

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

Which is an observation.

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.

You are confusing being free and having free will.

The point of free will is the freedom to will it, not the freedom necessarily to actually do it.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

Fortunately, I remain free not to think this has any relevance to how we construe free-will.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I think that "I have, therefore I am" is more metaphysically correct than "I think, therefore I am". (No that's not a contradiction. Thoughts are something that I have. They are not me, they are mine.)

Descartes meant the "I" to be the thinking thing so he thought of his thoughts has literally being him ("I").

Of course you remain free to think that your thoughts are not you, or all of you, but it's a misrepresentation of Descartes's view to interpret "think" in the Cogito as some activity that the "I" would have.
EB

 

[untermensche]

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.

Fortunately, I remain free not to think this has any relevance to how we construe free-will.
EB

It is abandonment of serious discussion of the topic.

It is science if Hollywood was in charge of science.

 

[untermensche]

I think that "I have, therefore I am" is more metaphysically correct than "I think, therefore I am". (No that's not a contradiction. Thoughts are something that I have. They are not me, they are mine.)

Descartes meant the "I" to be the thinking thing so he thought of his thoughts has literally being him ("I").

Of course you remain free to think that your thoughts are not you, or all of you, but it's a misrepresentation of Descartes's view to interpret "think" in the Cogito as some activity that the "I" would have.
EB

Am I my thoughts or am I that which is aware of thoughts which I call "my thoughts"?

 

[fromderinside]

Am I my thoughts or am I that which is aware of thoughts which I call "my thoughts"?

You are none of those. You are the being who does such stuff. Try touching your skin or jamming your finger down your throat if you believe otherwise.

 

[ryan]

First off, and most importantly, an agent could have chosen differently.

That doesn't relate to quantum probability, which neither subject to will or choice. We can't change probabilistic outcomes by an act of will alone. Decisions are related to orders of scale above quantum.

Probability is the freedom. Because of probability, there is freedom for probabilities greater than 0.

A model of the outside world may give an option for a rational decision or an irrational decision. Presumably there would be a mechanism in a quantum superposition that would lead to one of the options. This might be conscious decision-making that is deeply entangled in with the two options. Through entanglement, these four entities may have a whole/singular property of agency.

It at least strongly feels like the consciousness partly becomes its choices as it is mostly preoccupied by them.

Entanglement? I prefer chocolate over vanilla ice cream...so I would never choose vanilla. What does this have to do with quantum states?

Can you choose vanilla?

 

[ryan]

Fortunately, I remain free not to think this has any relevance to how we construe free-will.
EB

It is abandonment of serious discussion of the topic.

It is science if Hollywood was in charge of science.

Okay, turn off the boat's engine; I'll bite.

Do you not accept the multiverse as science? I know it's mostly theoretical, but it's still a possibility.

 

[ryan]

Am I my thoughts or am I that which is aware of thoughts which I call "my thoughts"?

You are none of those. You are the being who does such stuff. Try touching your skin or jamming your finger down your throat if you believe otherwise.

Then what can be attributed to a person's identity? Examples, Bob is very temperamental or Joe is a happy person.

 

[Juma]

The point of free will is the freedom to will it, not the freedom necessarily to actually do it.
EB

But thats just being able "to will", that is, being able to make choices. Thus there is no difference between having will and having "free will".