In Free Will, What Makes it "Free"

[DBT]

We have established that word meanings are derived from usage.

We have established that word usage normally relates to something in order to convey information and meaning for the purpose of communication; objects, events, ideas, concepts, etc.

We have established that word usage, the theory, the working definition of what the word means.. does not tell us whether the concept, the object, the idea, the event, etc, being represented as a word or term as used in that community refers to something that has any real existence.

Because word usage alone cannot establish whether the object of reference has any real existence, we must look elsewhere for evidence to support the proposition that the object of reference is indeed an actual thing, that it has any real existence.

What the word means is merely established by common agreement, with perhaps no relationship to reality, for example, gods, demons, young Earth Creationism...and in relation to this topic: free will.

What people commonly refer to or mean when they talk about free will is conscious agency, conscious control of decision making and consciously making a decision from a set of option and acting upon the chosen action.


This raises the question of the nature of cognition, the nuts and bolts, the how and why of the experience of conscious agency in order to determine whether the common perception of conscious agency and word usage and meaning that is a reflection of that perception is indeed true and valid

Was that a yes?

If not, can you point to the exact part with which you disagree. Here it is again broken down:

1) "You can't put any stipulation on what popular usage must refer to"

But I'm not saying anything about 'what popular usage must refer to!' Not at all. Not in the least. Not even a hint of it.

I'm simply saying that when popular usage refers to something, god, angels, hobgoblins, space aliens, free will or whatever....popular usage and meaning does not establish the existence of these things.

For that you need more than common references and common meaning or what people generally believe when they use the words.

You need independent evidence that supports the existence of god, angels, hobgoblins, space aliens, free will or whatever people refer to when they use the words and establish common meaning.

This should not be hard to grasp. I don't know why there is this difficulty with the concept of justification.

 

[Juma]

Mainstream my ass! That is a highly speculative hypotesis. Not near mainstream science.

First of all, I said it was a mainstream "stage". Second, this is only evidence that science is not sure that the consciousness does not have quantum mechanisms.

Not at all, it is evidence that SOMEONE thinks that. Not science.

But the resl problem wigh this discussion is not QM at all. It is your handwaving about free will. you have no coherent idea at all about this.
Ponder this:
1) nobody has ever observed free will.
2) how could billions of INDIVIDUAL particles result in a coherent persona?
3) schrödinger equation gives us very precise probabilities for the random behavior of particles and Bells inequality shows that there are no hidden laws/parameters. Yet you say that particles can make decisions...(which would require some internal relations forbidden by Bell)
4) how will a particle get all the information needed to make a decision?
5) libertarian free will is dualistic.

 

[ryan]

The more and more I see these misguided arguments from a false sense of certainty, the more and more I am concerned that this discussion is about something else - something that is too painful to accept for reasons I don't know yet. My guess is that it is about god or the inability to forgive one's self and take responsibility for past and present actions.

No, the objection to your belief is about an absence of evidence to support quantum, or randomness as a foundation for an argument for 'free' will...will itself being formed from information processing, the process of cognition. Neural network agency, and not randomness.

You have no foundation for your proposition so now you are drifting into an 'argument from ulterior motives' defence.

Do you really want to try to paint it that way? The post was not to anyone specific, and it came from a sincere place.

However, I did reply to you with a post, but I have just noticed that the link is not working anymore. Please read the quote that I posted.

And regarding the link, it was basically scientists from universities from around the world talking about how quantum mechanics can help explain the consciousness.

 

[The AntiChris]

Was that a yes?

If not, can you point to the exact part with which you disagree. Here it is again broken down:

1) "You can't put any stipulation on what popular usage must refer to"

But I'm not saying anything about 'what popular usage must refer to!' Not at all. Not in the least. Not even a hint of it.

I didn't think you were but all this could have been cleared up earlier if you simply responded with an unambiguous "yes" or "no" to direct questions.

I'm simply saying that when popular usage refers to something, god, angels, hobgoblins, space aliens, free will or whatever....popular usage and meaning does not establish the existence of these things.

But why do you feel that you need to remind of this in virtually every response you make when I've made the same point myself - we agree on this!

One problem here is that you seem to have convinced yourself that I'm making an argument for the existence some form of free will. I'm not (which is obvious if you take what I write at face value without making unwarranted assumptions).

You need independent evidence that supports the existence of god, angels, hobgoblins, space aliens, free will or whatever people refer to when they use the words and establish common meaning.

This should not be hard to grasp. I don't know why there is this difficulty with the concept of justification.

There is no difficulty. We agree. I'm at a complete loss as to why you would think otherwise as I've not made a single claim about the 'existence' of free will.

____________________________

Let's try again.


1) The meaning of the term 'free will' is derived from common usage (establishing meaning does not commit us to any acceptance of the reality/truth of any claim implicit in the usage).

2) There is more than one meaning of the term 'free will' in common usage (once again accepting this does not commit us to any acceptance of the reality/truth of any claim implicit in the usages).

Do you agree so far?

 

[ryan]

First of all, I said it was a mainstream "stage". Second, this is only evidence that science is not sure that the consciousness does not have quantum mechanisms.

Not at all, it is evidence that SOMEONE thinks that. Not science.

But the resl problem wigh this discussion is not QM at all. It is your handwaving about free will. you have no coherent idea at all about this.
Ponder this:
1) nobody has ever observed free will.

This is a waste of bits. It would be something that we observe everyday.

2) how could billions of INDIVIDUAL particles result in a coherent persona?

How do billions of neurons result in a coherent persona?

3) schrödinger equation gives us very precise probabilities for the random behavior of particles and Bells inequality shows that there are no hidden laws/parameters. Yet you say that particles can make decisions...(which would require some internal relations forbidden by Bell)

We have been over this. The particles wouldn't make decisions. They may just simply choose.

4) how will a particle get all the information needed to make a decision?

Well, assuming you have a good answer for 3), I would say that there are at least a few ways. They could be in entangled states with other particles and the environment, which would explain how we somehow know something exists outside of our minds. As well as answer many other ontological problems.

I think the thing that unifies us to give us at least the feeling of a whole/oneness are fields. Apparently, in the most prominent EM field theory, a single charge has an effect on every other charge in the universe by way of a continuous and smooth field.

5) libertarian free will is dualistic.

okay

 

[Juma]

1) nobody has ever observed free will.

This is a waste of bits. It would be something that we observe everyday.

really? How does what you experience differ from a "mechanical" mind where all decisions are, subcounsciouly, deterministically calculated from the input?

 

[ryan]

This is a waste of bits. It would be something that we observe everyday.

really? How does what you experience differ from a "mechanical" mind where all decisions are, subcounsciouly, deterministically calculated from the input?

Use "unconscious" not "subconscious".

They don't know that our brains are deterministic. I have said that in more posts than I can count.

 

[Juma]

really? How does what you experience differ from a "mechanical" mind where all decisions are, subcounsciouly, deterministically calculated from the input?

Use "unconscious" not "subconscious".

They don't know that our brains are deterministic. I have said that in more posts than I can count.

Can you please answer the question instead of dodging it?

 

[ryan]

Use "unconscious" not "subconscious".

They don't know that our brains are deterministic. I have said that in more posts than I can count.

Can you please answer the question instead of dodging it?

It feels more like I have freedom than being a cog in machine. If I were a cog, then I would think that I would feel like a passenger in someone else's car; I would have no feel for control.

 

[Juma]

Can you please answer the question instead of dodging it?

It feels more like I have freedom than being a cog in machine. If I were a cog, then I would think that I would feel like a passenger in someone else's car; I would have no feel for control.

Ah, so you can feel how your brain works? Dont think so.. Think again.

 

[DBT]

Can you please answer the question instead of dodging it?

It feels more like I have freedom than being a cog in machine. If I were a cog, then I would think that I would feel like a passenger in someone else's car; I would have no feel for control.

Cogs can rotate quite freely on their shafts...there's the word 'free' - the cog must have 'free will' - after all, it is composed of quantum particles just like you and me, and quantum particles are, in your words, 'free.' Proven: cogs have free will.

 

[DBT]

And regarding the link, it was basically scientists from universities from around the world talking about how quantum mechanics can help explain the consciousness.

Can you provide the relevant description? The part that you believe supports your contention.

 

[DBT]

Let's try again.


1) The meaning of the term 'free will' is derived from common usage (establishing meaning does not commit us to any acceptance of the reality/truth of any claim implicit in the usage).

2) There is more than one meaning of the term 'free will' in common usage (once again accepting this does not commit us to any acceptance of the reality/truth of any claim implicit in the usages).

Do you agree so far?

Sure, we agreed on this a while back. And what I've argued from the start....beginning over ten years ago on IIDB when the subject of free will came up.

The thing is, you have made comments that suggest that you are making some sort of case for free will based on word usage, a semantic argument (I've already given examples), but if that's not the case, I have no idea what your point is....considering that we do appear to agree on the practice and nature of common usage in relation to meaning.

And if we agree that establishing the existence of the thing being referred to though common usage and meaning, semantics, requires more than usage alone, we have nothing to argue about...except the question of the reality of the thing being referred to as 'free will' - and that is a matter of evidence from neuroscience to establish.

 

[The AntiChris]

Let's try again.


1) The meaning of the term 'free will' is derived from common usage (establishing meaning does not commit us to any acceptance of the reality/truth of any claim implicit in the usage).

2) There is more than one meaning of the term 'free will' in common usage (once again accepting this does not commit us to any acceptance of the reality/truth of any claim implicit in the usages).

Do you agree so far?

Sure, we agreed on this a while back.

Good.

So having agreed that there is more than one meaning of the term 'free will' in common use, it follows logically that an argument against one version of 'free will' may not necessarily refute all versions (other arguments may well do the job though).

In other words, each version (usage/meaning) of 'free will' require its own specific refutation.

Do you agree?

I have no idea what your point is....considering that we do appear to agree on the practice and nature of common usage in relation to meaning.

I'm pretty sure we don't agree.

It's clear to me that we have quite different interpretations of what is entailed by the principle of 'usage is meaning'. I'm just trying to find out precisely the root of the problem I identified in my first response to you in this thread (post #618).

 

[fromderinside]

I don't think my evaluation need be consistent with popular usage.

Of course not. I clearly wasn't suggesting that.

In fact I was specifically pointing out the distinction between usage and evaluation.

Since Iunderstood that I included why I was objecting to the element of your post which went like

My evaluation is consistent with my view of popular usage which is obviously individual and unique. Mining those comments for differences is what usually leads to evolution of meaning in popular usage objectively in text and individually, though separately, in individual minds. Unfortunately we don't mind meld so the process is never ending.

I was showing how I think individual usage of popular usage discussion is relevant to future popular usage.

 

[ryan]

It feels more like I have freedom than being a cog in machine. If I were a cog, then I would think that I would feel like a passenger in someone else's car; I would have no feel for control.

Ah, so you can feel how your brain works? Dont think so.. Think again.

Stop trying to put me in a positive position. This argument is about me raising the doubt in your false sense of certainty.

 

[fromderinside]

Ah, so you can feel how your brain works? Dont think so.. Think again.

Stop trying to put me in a positive position. This argument is about me raising the doubt in your false sense of certainty.

Not working is it.

 

[ryan]

It feels more like I have freedom than being a cog in machine. If I were a cog, then I would think that I would feel like a passenger in someone else's car; I would have no feel for control.

Cogs can rotate quite freely on their shafts...there's the word 'free' - the cog must have 'free will' - after all, it is composed of quantum particles just like you and me, and quantum particles are, in your words, 'free.' Proven: cogs have free will.

We want things; we don't know if cogs want things.

Can you provide the relevant description? The part that you believe supports your contention.

"Discovery of quantum vibrations in 'microtubules' corroborates theory of consciousness"

from http://phys.org/news/2014-01-discovery-quantum-vibrations-microtubules-corroborates.html

"A model developed by Beck and Eccles applies concrete quantum mechanical features to describe details of the process of exocytosis. Their model proposes that quantum processes are relevant for exocytosis and, moreover, are tightly related to states of consciousness."

from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-consciousness/#3.2

 

[ryan]

Stop trying to put me in a positive position. This argument is about me raising the doubt in your false sense of certainty.

Not working is it.

How would I ever know? I have never in the 5 years of being on here have ever seen anyone admit that he or she is wrong to anyone.

Actually bilby did once. I was so blown away that for the only time ever I went against my rule about not giving rep points, and I gave him one.

 

[The AntiChris]

I was showing how I think individual usage of popular usage discussion is relevant to future popular usage.

Ok, thanks. That's really useful.