In Free Will, What Makes it "Free"

[DBT]

QM is the system - all of its seemingly classical expressions and fundamental quantum expressions makeup what we are consciously. We wouldn't experience these quantum effects because we are these quantum effects. Quantum "weirdness" is mostly what we are mechanically. There is no classical mechanics; CM is just an artifact of accepted ignorance, ignorance that was quite justified I should add.

No ryan, there is more to physics than QM. And you studiously ignored what I said using QM as a master theory, a ToE.

If you think you can explain animal behaviour in terms of QM...why Bower Birds build bowers, why peacocks have ostentatious plumage...why we as humans behave the way we do, our attributes and traits, go for it. Pick one you like and give an explanation for the why and how of it in terms of QM.

 

[ryan]

Like a butterfly effect, each particle's action may amplify over time - all particles could do this all of the time!

So what? It's not by any form of choice or conscious manipulation in favour of one's desires, not even unconscious manipulation, which makes it irrelevant in relation to decision making and your so called free will.....which is nothing more than the experience of 'will' that's shaped and formed by the brain. A conscious experience that becomes skewed with chemical imbalances and disintegrates with memory function loss.

I remember doing a presentation in grade 12 biology on the great horned owl. The most interesting thing about it was that it spends time outside of its habitat and does not play a regular role as it did when it was supporting its mate and her owlets. The only thing that stays consistent is that the two owls are monogamous and remain partners for life.

It's so weird; to this day, every once in a while, I think about what the great horned owl does when it is not preparing and fulfilling its primary duties. It may just be that its will takes over and shows itself a new variety of life. Maybe it does things it enjoys doing.

 

[DBT]

So what? It's not by any form of choice or conscious manipulation in favour of one's desires, not even unconscious manipulation, which makes it irrelevant in relation to decision making and your so called free will.....which is nothing more than the experience of 'will' that's shaped and formed by the brain. A conscious experience that becomes skewed with chemical imbalances and disintegrates with memory function loss.

I remember doing a presentation in grade 12 biology on the great horned owl. The most interesting thing about it was that it spends time outside of its habitat and does not play a regular role as it did when it was supporting its mate and her owlets. The only thing that stays consistent is that the two owls are monogamous and remain partners for life.

It's so weird; to this day, every once in a while, I think about what the great horned owl does when it is not preparing and fulfilling its primary duties. It may just be that its will takes over and shows itself a new variety of life. Maybe it does things it enjoys doing.

That was an explanation, but an explanation that has nothing to do with the requested QM explanation for animal interactions and behaviours...

 

[ryan]

QM is the system - all of its seemingly classical expressions and fundamental quantum expressions makeup what we are consciously. We wouldn't experience these quantum effects because we are these quantum effects. Quantum "weirdness" is mostly what we are mechanically. There is no classical mechanics; CM is just an artifact of accepted ignorance, ignorance that was quite justified I should add.

No ryan, there is more to physics than QM. And you studiously ignored what I said using QM as a master theory, a ToE.

If you think you can explain animal behaviour in terms of QM...why Bower Birds build bowers, why peacocks have ostentatious plumage...why we as humans behave the way we do, our attributes and traits, go for it. Pick one you like and give an explanation for the why and how of it in terms of QM.

The ToE, not "a ToE"

And you originally mentioned the Grand Unification Theory.

QFT explains mostly everything except gravity. And if QFT and GR can't explain it, then you don't have a leg to stand on at all.

At least I have a possible explanation for the fundamental reason for QM, and QM is a way that a limited free will could work.

 

[DBT]

The ToE, not "a ToE"

As a ToE has not yet eventuated, we don't know precisely what a ToE will look like. If and when it does eventuate, it will then be the ToE.

QFT explains mostly everything except gravity.

It doesn't explain evolution, life on Earth, interactions and relationships between species, human decision making or behaviour... just to mention a few things that QFL or QM or the uncertainty principle or wave function or decoherance cannot be used to explain...

You make these claims, but cannot back what you claim with substantiated accounts or logical arguments.

 

[PyramidHead]

The difficult part to grasp is why you insist that someone who, like you and me, agrees there is a difference between a coerced will and a non-coerced will, is wrong when they use the English word 'free' to describe the latter.

It is, by far, a more commonly accepted use of the term than the restrictive sense used by philosopher types.

So if all I mean by 'free will' is exactly what I have bolded in your statement above and no more or less, why am I wrong? In other words, why is compatibilism wrong?

I'm pointing out that it is not 'will' itself that is inherently free, being an expression of cellular information exchange, but that it is [determined] will that's free from external coercion. The word 'free' being related to the specific condition of the absence of coercion, but not to the nature and condition of 'will' itself.

So common references, may convey the the meaning that coercion is present or absent adequately - ''he acted of his own free will'' - as a reference to 'free will' is not necessarily accurate in relation to the question of whether or not 'will' itself is indeed free....regardless of the issue of coercion.

No. Stop. You specifically said this:

Of course there is a difference between a coerced action and an non coerced action, the former means that you are being pressured or forced to act against your will, and in the latter case you are not being pressured or forced to act against your will.

As an English speaker in a community of people who know English, I may choose to distinguish the former from the latter case by using my mouth to utter a certain string of phonemes. Specifically, the vocalizations that comprise the word "free" followed by the word "will". You just said (literally, word-for-word as I quoted above) that there is a legitimate distinction to be made between coerced and non-coerced actions. An English speaker who is using the words "free will" to refer to exactly that distinction cannot possibly be wrong, unless you argue that your use of the word "will" is the only correct use.

 

[ryan]

As a ToE has not yet eventuated, we don't know precisely what a ToE will look like. If and when it does eventuate, it will then be the ToE.

QFT explains mostly everything except gravity.

It doesn't explain evolution, life on Earth, interactions and relationships between species, human decision making or behaviour... just to mention a few things that QFL or QM or the uncertainty principle or wave function or decoherance cannot be used to explain...

You make these claims, but cannot back what you claim with substantiated accounts or logical arguments.

There is no question that QFT and GR are the two main theories that facilitate most of what we see at the macro scale. We just don't have the luxury of knowing every state of every particle. There is not even a debate that almost everything observed on Earth follows the fundamental mechanics of GR and QFT.

 

[ryan]

On a Side Note

You can't go wrong believing in free will. If you don't have free will but believe in free will, then this belief is just part of the course that is laid out in front of you that you have to follow. If you have free will and use it by truly believing that you can intervene on the course of the universe, I will assure you that you will have more control over your lives and surroundings.

 

[bilby]

On a Side Note

You can't go wrong believing in free will. If you don't have free will but believe in free will, then this belief is just part of the course that is laid out in front of you that you have to follow. If you have free will and use it by truly believing that you can intervene on the course of the universe, I will assure you that you will have more control over your lives and surroundings.

Pascal's wager was never less convincing than it is as presented here.

 

[rrr6]

Sorry, but I feel compelled to point out an apparent contradiction between the statement - ''We have an illusion of freedom to will this or that to happen'' and the statement - ''Free will is limited i.e. there exists limits to what can be willed to happen''
Which, the latter implies that free will is not an illusion, but is real in limited form, thereby contradicting the first statement, that free will is an illusion and therefore not real.

"if" there exists free will, then it is limited. is not a contradiction. Free will is an illusion ergo cause and effect determinism has been my stance for many years now and have been very clear in those regards in my posts in this thread.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free will is a great illusionary resultant of non-observed connection--- missing link --between gravity and our observed reality.

A cosmic missing link. imho My recent, an dvery preliminary numerical sine-wave--- that is inside-outed ---explorations, have led me to assign the label/identity of time as the link between positive shaped gravity and negative shape gravity/reality.

Torus = ( ( ) ) = great torus

Non-occupied space torus--- defined by time (( )) ---within a great torus

(--( (--( )--) )--)

So we may say, that, we have gravitational time and gravitational/reality time.

Outer, positive shape gravity--time

non-occupied space within

Inner, negative shape gravity/reality--time

With the inside-outed, numerical sine-wave, the sequence of numbers,beginng with 0 on outer time line goes to #1 on the outer gravity line.

From #1 on outer surface, we may find that, there is trajectory of geodesic connection between outer positive surface #1 and inner negative surface #2

........1................5........7..............................
0.............................6....................................

non-occupied space tube within the toroidal tube

.................3...............................................
............2........4...........................................

 

[Kharakov]

On a Side Note

You can't go wrong believing in free will. If you don't have free will but believe in free will, then this belief is just part of the course that is laid out in front of you that you have to follow. If you have free will and use it by truly believing that you can intervene on the course of the universe, I will assure you that you will have more control over your lives and surroundings.

As a will dealer, I'm relatively certain that any will you've gotten for free is not the same quality as the will I souled.

 

[ryan]

On a Side Note

You can't go wrong believing in free will. If you don't have free will but believe in free will, then this belief is just part of the course that is laid out in front of you that you have to follow. If you have free will and use it by truly believing that you can intervene on the course of the universe, I will assure you that you will have more control over your lives and surroundings.

Pascal's wager was never less convincing than it is as presented here.

I always wondered why people act like sheep; now it is becoming clear. Don't be a bot whose only choice is to blame everything on everything else.

Of course some of us have done too much self-destruction to accept responsibility. To those poor souls I am truly sad for and can only hope the best for them for the rest of their lives.

 

[bilby]

Pascal's wager was never less convincing than it is as presented here.

I always wondered why people act like sheep; now it is becoming clear. Don't be a bot whose only choice is to blame everything on everything else.

Of course some of us have done too much self-destruction to accept responsibility. To those poor souls I am truly sad for and can only hope the best for them for the rest of their lives.

Ahh, souls.

Sorry, but I am not buying any religion - not even yours.

 

[ryan]

I always wondered why people act like sheep; now it is becoming clear. Don't be a bot whose only choice is to blame everything on everything else.

Of course some of us have done too much self-destruction to accept responsibility. To those poor souls I am truly sad for and can only hope the best for them for the rest of their lives.

Ahh, souls.

Sorry, but I am not buying any religion - not even yours.

I will pray to me for you.

 

[ryan]

On a Side Note

You can't go wrong believing in free will. If you don't have free will but believe in free will, then this belief is just part of the course that is laid out in front of you that you have to follow. If you have free will and use it by truly believing that you can intervene on the course of the universe, I will assure you that you will have more control over your lives and surroundings.

As a will dealer, I'm relatively certain that any will you've gotten for free is not the same quality as the will I souled.

my fingers are long
they go through Kharakov like water through soil
your roots consume me
you are growing

 

[ryan]

As a will dealer, I'm relatively certain that any will you've gotten for free is not the same quality as the will I souled.

my fingers are long
they go through Kharakov like water through soil
your roots consume me
you are growing

Kidding aside, the thorough professional help that I received years ago really drove it into me that I must assume responsibility. It helped with my depression, and it may be the reason why I am alive today. I guess it's a tribal instinct to preach a little of what one experiences to be greatly valuable.

 

[DBT]

No. Stop. You specifically said this:

Of course there is a difference between a coerced action and an non coerced action, the former means that you are being pressured or forced to act against your will, and in the latter case you are not being pressured or forced to act against your will.

There is no discrepancy between the two remarks, I simply fleshed out the first remark by adding more detail in the second.

As an English speaker in a community of people who know English, I may choose to distinguish the former from the latter case by using my mouth to utter a certain string of phonemes. Specifically, the vocalizations that comprise the word "free" followed by the word "will". You just said (literally, word-for-word as I quoted above) that there is a legitimate distinction to be made between coerced and non-coerced actions. An English speaker who is using the words "free will" to refer to exactly that distinction cannot possibly be wrong, unless you argue that your use of the word "will" is the only correct use.

As 'an English speaker in a community of people who know English' you should understand that words are symbols used in reference to articles for the purpose of communication, and not the articles themselves.

The word 'moon' is not the actual moon, which is an object that has its own features and attributes regardless of the names we label it with, Lunar, Moon, etc.

Now, if the architecture and electrochemical activity of a brain is is deterministic and therefore its output (feelings, thoughts, decisions, actions) is determined by neural condition, 'will' - a word that is used in relation to feelings, thoughts, decisions, actions - cannot be defined as being free (will has no independence, it cannot choose to do otherwise) regardless of the presence or absence of coercion.

If the system is free from coercion (coercion is absent) the word 'free' specifically relates to the absence of coercion and not to the state or condition of 'will'

Lets say that the police catch a addict in the act of an armed hold up. The put him in handcuffs, drive him to the Police Station where they put him in a cell and then remove his handcuffs through the bars of the cell.

The addict is now free from his handcuffs, but this freedom from handcuffs says nothing about the condition of the addict as a whole. He is free from his handcuffs but he is locked in a cell, he is not free.

The word free relates specifically to the article; the handcuffs (the handcuffs have been removed.)

Similarly with coercion, if there is no sign of coercion, one is free from coercion, coercion is absent, but this tells us nothing about the overall state or condition of the sole agent of 'feelings, thoughts, decisions, actions' - the brain.

The word 'free' specifically relates to its article, in this instance 'the absence of coercion' and nothing more.

This doesn't change because 'an English speaker in a community of people who know English' may erroneously extend the reference into an area where it doesn't relate.

 

[The AntiChris]

Now, if the architecture and electrochemical activity of a brain is is deterministic and therefore its output (feelings, thoughts, decisions, actions) is determined by neural condition, 'will' - a word that is used in relation to feelings, thoughts, decisions, actions - cannot be defined as being free.

As stated, this is a non sequitur.

That's not to say it's false - it just doesn't follow as a matter of logical necessity.

I'm guessing you're making unstated assumptions which you probably think are self-evident. Unfortunately things that are self-evident to one person are not necessarily self-evident to another.

If the system is free from coercion (coercion is absent) the word 'free' specifically relates to the absence of coercion and not to the state or condition of 'will'

It seems to me this argument could be used to challenge any use of the word free - e.g. If X is free from Y the word free specifically relates to the lack of Y and not the state or condition of X.

 

[DBT]

As stated, this is a non sequitur.

That's not to say it's false - it just doesn't follow as a matter of logical necessity.

I'm guessing you're making unstated assumptions which you probably think are self-evident. Unfortunately things that are self-evident to one person are not necessarily self-evident to another.

Not my assumption, it's called Incompatibilism. The argument that freedom is incompatible with determinism.

This is nothing new, yet your remarks suggest that this is just something that fell out of blue. It's quite odd.

''Incompatibilism is the view that a deterministic universe is completely at odds with the notion that people have a free will; that there is a dichotomy between determinism and free will where philosophers must choose one or the other.''

''Determinism is a claim about the laws of nature: very roughly, it is the claim that everything that happens is determined by antecedent conditions together with the natural laws. Incompatibilism is a philosophical thesis about the relevance of determinism to free will: that the truth of determinism rules out the existence of free will. The incompatibilist believes that if determinism turned out to be true, it would also be true that we don't have, and have never had, free will.''

Basically:
1- Arguments for the claim that determinism makes it impossible for us to cause and control our actions in the right kind of way.
2 - Arguments for the claim that determinism deprives us of the power or ability to do or choose otherwise.

Though I am not a hard determinist, logically, freedom by the given definitions of the word, is eliminated if the world is 'under the sway of determinism because given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.

'Fixed' meaning: no diversion or choice is permitted under causal determinism.

fixed
1 a : securely placed or fastened : stationary

c (1) : not subject to change or fluctuation <a fixed income> (2) : firmly set in the mind <a fixed idea

 

[The AntiChris]