“Reality Goes Beyond Physics,” and more

[peacegirl]

The illusion of free will is formed from the illusion of choice, that we could have taken any one of a number of options as perceived in any given circumstance. Which, given determinism, cannot happen.

Our pop culture itself is an illusion is it not? Another thread in metaphysics.

Religion to us atheists is an illusion.

The belief in God may be considered by atheists to be an illusion because this God can't be found anywhere, just like possible worlds can't be found anywhere and can't be used to trump what is seen in the observable world.

 

[pood]

 

[pood]

The roll eyes was @ post 700.

 

[pood]

It was kismet when pood met peacegirl. IOW fate, predetermined.

Careful, otherwise this is going to be true of you.

 

[peacegirl]

You can go through 4 years of college and not take a philosophy class. If you do it could be just the the intro class to fulfill a humanities requirement.

In common terms freedom of choice means being able to choose a Ford over a Honda without direct coercion. Ignoring how we are influenced by culture and advertising.

In psychology, the branch that studies decision making is called cognitive psychology. It examines the mental processes involved in selecting a course of action from multiple options, considering factors like emotions, biases, and how individuals evaluate information to make choices.
Key points about decision making in psychology:

Focus on cognitive processes:
Cognitive psychology studies how people perceive, process, and interpret information, which is central to decision making.

Rational vs. emotional decision making:
Psychologists often distinguish between a rational system (based on logic and analysis) and an emotional system (driven by feelings and intuition) that influence choices.
Decision biases:
Cognitive biases, like anchoring bias or framing effect, are studied to understand how people might make suboptimal decisions.
Real-world applications:
Understanding decision making psychology can be applied to various fields like consumer behavior, organizational management, and public policy.

We are debating here on the edges of the topic.

Decision-Making

Chocolate or strawberry? Life or death? We make some choices quickly and automatically, relying on mental shortcuts our brains have developed over the years to guide us in the best course of action. Understanding strategies such as maximizing vs. satisficing, fast versus slow thinking, and...

www.psychologytoday.com

That the brain acquires and processes information and makes decisions is not being disputed.

No kidding, the open question is whether or not decisions are deterministic or not.

In this area psychology has superseded the old philosophy detonates, IMO. Psychology puts it on a scientific experimental basis.

No way. It is in support of decisions that are made on the basis of all these factors. Nature and nurture come into play to determine what a person will decide. Unfortunately, the standard definition is problematic and the cause of the confusion. I mentioned that hard determinism brought about soft determinism, both definitions being off the mark. These are words that have no basis in reality. Hard determinism implies coercion, force, against one's will. That's why Pood keeps bringing up determinism forcing one's hand to choose steak when he wants chicken. That's not how it works.

There is tremendous misunderstanding about the meaning of determinism, therefore it is necessary to first demonstrate why man’s will is not free so the reader can follow the reasoning which leads to my discovery. The fact that man’s will is not free is the gateway that allows the reader to come face-to-face with the fiery dragon himself. It really doesn’t make any difference whether or not the proof of determinism is established beforehand because undeniable proof is established in the meaning, but despite this, it is still of value to know why man’s will is not free, so to familiarize you with mathematical reasoning before we attack the heart of the problem, I shall demonstrate in an undeniable manner exactly why will is not free. Once it is proven mathematically, which takes into consideration the implications, there can be no more opinions or theories expressed on the subject, just as our ancestors stopped saying, “I believe the earth is flat”, once they knew for a fact it was round.

 

[pood]

Lest there be any confusion, though I think only one person will be confused, I think a few points should be clarified.

When we speak of possible worlds, we are referring to the heuristic of modal logical. These are logically possible worlds. They include worlds where I choose Pepsi over Coke despite, in the actual world, my choosing Coke over Pepsi. There is a logically possible world at which I chose Pepsi over Coke despite antecedents being exactly the same, which is a logical demonstration that I could have done other than what I did. The prerequisite for a world being logically possible, even if non-actual, is that I can imagine it without bringing about a logical contradiction. So, despite the fact that gravity operates universally, I can imagine a possible world at which it does not without invoking a logical contradiction, so gravity is a contingent fact about the universe.

The many worlds of quantum mechanics refers to the idea that there is no wave-function collapse and so all worlds with a quantum non-zero possibility of occurring are actual worlds.

The block universe modal states that time, like space, is an indexical — a point of view. So on this model all times past, present, and future, exist, just as all locations in space actually exist. In e very real sense all persons carry their own private space and time, but we do not ordinarily notice this because we all share roughly the same inertial (earth) frame. The block universe is derived for the theory of relativity.

There is a philosophical (not scientific) idea that actuality is also an indexical, like space and time. This idea, called modal realism or extréme modal realism, posits that all counterfactual worlds actually exist, but are only actual to their own inhabitants. This has something in common with quantum many worlds but is motivated by philosophy whereas quantum many worlds is strongly indicated by science though, as yet, cannot be confirmed or falsified.

 

[pood]

In common usage I think free will simply means the freedom to choose as you see fit.

This is the whole thing in a nutshell.

 

[steve_bank]

Peacegirl is stuck in a karmic conditioned causal loop. Probably unaware. Repetitive conditioned responses. Deterministic predictable responses.

Are you saying hard determinism is self fulfilling? That’s a kind thought. Let it be true for PG, since she is determined to believe it. But the same quality (self fulfilling) must be granted to the free willies as well, right?
Or are we all, or just some of us, allowed to impose our beliefs upon others? That gets pretty messy.

Determinism and free will for the devotees is fulfilling in the sense a belief in god is fulfilling.

Also from Buddhism the trick is to get above tt all and avoid going down 'illusory' butterfat holes. Easier said then done.

How can we easily get above murder, especially if it is our loved one that is murdered? Teach me how enlightened Buddha?

I am not a teacher, I took away some useful things from Buddhism. I am not a Buddhist. I ascr9be to forethought. as much as possible look at issues and problems without looking through the bias of an ideology.

What Buddha allegedly taught was to live is to suffer. It is inescapable. And we make a lot of our own suffering by what we attach to as value.

The Dali Lama's videos on violence, morality and human suffering are good incites.

In Buddhism as I understand it the goal is it ending your karmic causalities and be at rest or peace. Ending your own self imposed suffering. To me Buddhism is an old practical psychology framed in the culture of the day.

Look at the Buddhist 8 Fold Path. It predates Christianity by about 300 years.

Noble Eightfold Path - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We are violent primates. As I recall Jane Goodall was a bit shocked when she observed her beloved chimps hunt down another chimp, kill it, ad eat it. One troop will single out a chimp from another troop and kill it and eat it. They fling feces at each other when pissed off.

We are what we are. we share a lot of genes with chimps which is why we study them.

A derail to science.

 

[DBT]

You can go through 4 years of college and not take a philosophy class. If you do it could be just the the intro class to fulfill a humanities requirement.

In common terms freedom of choice means being able to choose a Ford over a Honda without direct coercion. Ignoring how we are influenced by culture and advertising.

In psychology, the branch that studies decision making is called cognitive psychology. It examines the mental processes involved in selecting a course of action from multiple options, considering factors like emotions, biases, and how individuals evaluate information to make choices.
Key points about decision making in psychology:

Focus on cognitive processes:
Cognitive psychology studies how people perceive, process, and interpret information, which is central to decision making.

Rational vs. emotional decision making:
Psychologists often distinguish between a rational system (based on logic and analysis) and an emotional system (driven by feelings and intuition) that influence choices.
Decision biases:
Cognitive biases, like anchoring bias or framing effect, are studied to understand how people might make suboptimal decisions.
Real-world applications:
Understanding decision making psychology can be applied to various fields like consumer behavior, organizational management, and public policy.

We are debating here on the edges of the topic.

Decision-Making

Chocolate or strawberry? Life or death? We make some choices quickly and automatically, relying on mental shortcuts our brains have developed over the years to guide us in the best course of action. Understanding strategies such as maximizing vs. satisficing, fast versus slow thinking, and...

www.psychologytoday.com

That the brain acquires and processes information and makes decisions is not being disputed.

No kidding, the open question is whether or not decisions are deterministic or not.

In this area psychology has superseded the old philosophy detonates, IMO. Psychology puts it on a scientific experimental basis.

There is a distinction to be made between decision making and choice. If determinism is true, decisions are made, but they are a matter of necessity, not choice.

 

[bilby]

You can go through 4 years of college and not take a philosophy class. If you do it could be just the the intro class to fulfill a humanities requirement.

In common terms freedom of choice means being able to choose a Ford over a Honda without direct coercion. Ignoring how we are influenced by culture and advertising.

In psychology, the branch that studies decision making is called cognitive psychology. It examines the mental processes involved in selecting a course of action from multiple options, considering factors like emotions, biases, and how individuals evaluate information to make choices.
Key points about decision making in psychology:

Focus on cognitive processes:
Cognitive psychology studies how people perceive, process, and interpret information, which is central to decision making.

Rational vs. emotional decision making:
Psychologists often distinguish between a rational system (based on logic and analysis) and an emotional system (driven by feelings and intuition) that influence choices.
Decision biases:
Cognitive biases, like anchoring bias or framing effect, are studied to understand how people might make suboptimal decisions.
Real-world applications:
Understanding decision making psychology can be applied to various fields like consumer behavior, organizational management, and public policy.

We are debating here on the edges of the topic.

Decision-Making

Chocolate or strawberry? Life or death? We make some choices quickly and automatically, relying on mental shortcuts our brains have developed over the years to guide us in the best course of action. Understanding strategies such as maximizing vs. satisficing, fast versus slow thinking, and...

www.psychologytoday.com

That the brain acquires and processes information and makes decisions is not being disputed.

No kidding, the open question is whether or not decisions are deterministic or not.

In this area psychology has superseded the old philosophy detonates, IMO. Psychology puts it on a scientific experimental basis.

There is a distinction to be made between decision making and choice. If determinism is true, decisions are made, but they are a matter of necessity, not choice.

They are both. What you call "necessity" is in fact "me"; I don't choose Pepsi because I don't want to.

That this could hypothetically be calculated by looking at the immutable action of physical law upon the atoms and electrons in my brain is of zero significance; To think about what it is that is "me" in such terms is pointless and impractical.

If the thing that physically restrains me is entirely internal to me, then it's just me.

Freedom of choice, and the making of decisions, is not the same as (or even similar to) unpredictability. If I were making decisions at random, that would not be "choice", it would be "madness".

 

[DBT]

That they are ''my'' decisions has no baring on the nature of decision making within a deterministic system, or the distinction between decision making and choice.....which, given determinism, is an illusion.

''Van Inwagen thinks that it does. He defends the view that free will is, despite the compatibilist’s best efforts, genuinely in conflict with the possibility of free will. He says:

“...compatibilists can make their doctrine seem like robust common sense only by sweeping a mystery under the carpet ...I believe that it is possible to lift the carpet and display the hidden mystery. The notion of ‘not having a choice’ has a certain logic to it. One of the principles of this logic is, or so it seems, embodied in the following thesis, which I shall refer to as the No Choice Principle:

Suppose that p and that no one has (or ever had) any choice about whether p. And suppose also that the following conditional (if-then) statement is true and that no one has (or ever had) any choice about whether it is true: if p, then q. It follows from these two suppositions that q and that no one has (or ever had) any choice about whether q.


...The No Choice Principle seems undeniably correct. How could I have a choice about anything that is an inevitably consequence of something I have no choice about? And yet ...the compatibilist must deny the No Choice Principle.”

 

[bilby]

I don't think you (or Inwagen) have fully grasped that dualism is a gross error. Me is me; I am the sum of my physical parts, not some kind of spirit that drives around in my physical body without being a part of it, like a chauffeur in a limousine.

"Internal necessity" is ME.

 

[DBT]

You can go through 4 years of college and not take a philosophy class. If you do it could be just the the intro class to fulfill a humanities requirement.

In common terms freedom of choice means being able to choose a Ford over a Honda without direct coercion. Ignoring how we are influenced by culture and advertising.

In psychology, the branch that studies decision making is called cognitive psychology. It examines the mental processes involved in selecting a course of action from multiple options, considering factors like emotions, biases, and how individuals evaluate information to make choices.
Key points about decision making in psychology:

Focus on cognitive processes:
Cognitive psychology studies how people perceive, process, and interpret information, which is central to decision making.

Rational vs. emotional decision making:
Psychologists often distinguish between a rational system (based on logic and analysis) and an emotional system (driven by feelings and intuition) that influence choices.
Decision biases:
Cognitive biases, like anchoring bias or framing effect, are studied to understand how people might make suboptimal decisions.
Real-world applications:
Understanding decision making psychology can be applied to various fields like consumer behavior, organizational management, and public policy.

We are debating here on the edges of the topic.

Decision-Making

Chocolate or strawberry? Life or death? We make some choices quickly and automatically, relying on mental shortcuts our brains have developed over the years to guide us in the best course of action. Understanding strategies such as maximizing vs. satisficing, fast versus slow thinking, and...

www.psychologytoday.com

That the brain acquires and processes information and makes decisions is not being disputed.

No kidding, the open question is whether or not decisions are deterministic or not.

In this area psychology has superseded the old philosophy detonates, IMO. Psychology puts it on a scientific experimental basis.

There is a distinction to be made between decision making and choice. If determinism is true, decisions are made, but they are a matter of necessity, not choice.

They are both. What you call "necessity" is in fact "me"; I don't choose Pepsi because I don't want to.

That this could hypothetically be calculated by looking at the immutable action of physical law upon the atoms and electrons in my brain is of zero significance; To think about what it is that is "me" in such terms is pointless and impractical.

If the thing that physically restrains me is entirely internal to me, then it's just me.

Freedom of choice, and the making of decisions, is not the same as (or even similar to) unpredictability. If I were making decisions at random, that would not be "choice", it would be "madness".

You as a conscious entity have no control over what is happening within the means and mechanisms that produce you, your thoughts, feelings and actions.

Free will doesn't produce your conscious mind, thoughts and action, that is the work of unconscious neural networks processing information.

If it has nothing to do with free will, it cannot be labelled free will.

The notion of free will is a case false labelling, an ideology, for some folks, practically a religion.

 

[bilby]

You as a conscious entity have no control over what is happening within the means and mechanisms that produce you, your thoughts, feelings and actions.

The two bolded phrases are synonymous. These are the same thing. What you just said is essentially;

"You as a conscious entity have no control over what is happening within you as a conscious entity"

Which is clearly untrue, as people are in fact a mass of feedback loops - the vast majority of the inputs to my current brain state are taken direcrly from my prior brain states, modified only fractionally by sensory inputs from the wider world.

I am "the means and mechanisms that produce" me. There is nothing else; Dualism is nonsense, and is entirely a religious concept.

The notion that 'the means and mechanisms that produce me' are somehow separate and different from 'me as a conscious entity' is dualism.

 

[peacegirl]

Lest there be any confusion, though I think only one person will be confused, I think a few points should be clarified.

When we speak of possible worlds, we are referring to the heuristic of modal logical. These are logically possible worlds. They include worlds where I choose Pepsi over Coke despite, in the actual world, my choosing Coke over Pepsi. There is a logically possible world at which I chose Pepsi over Coke despite antecedents being exactly the same, which is a logical demonstration that I could have done other than what I did. The prerequisite for a world being logically possible, even if non-actual, is that I can imagine it without bringing about a logical contradiction. So, despite the fact that gravity operates universally, I can imagine a possible world at which it does not without invoking a logical contradiction, so gravity is a contingent fact about the universe.

Imagining a possible world where another choice could be made is like saying in another situation where the antecedents were slightly different, I could have chosen Pepsi over Coke. It's just one's imagination because there is no other world running parallel to this world

The many worlds of quantum mechanics refers to the idea that there is no wave-function collapse and so all worlds with a quantum non-zero possibility of occurring are actual worlds.

Where does quantum mechanics enter into decision making that are able to alter the inner mechanics and structure of our brain states in any actualizable way?

The block universe modal states that time, like space, is an indexical — a point of view. So on this model all times past, present, and future, exist, just as all locations in space actually exist. In e very real sense all persons carry their own private space and time, but we do not ordinarily notice this because we all share roughly the same inertial (earth) frame. The block universe is derived for the theory of relativity.

What does this actually mean that we carry our own private space but share the same inertial (earth) frame in terms of free will? Do some people live further into the future or farther back into the past? This is complete science fiction and it's hard to believe people take this seriously. This would mean we could visit different times that are not the present. This would make a great sci-fi movie, for sure.

If you find the idea of time travel mind-bending, get a load of the 'block universe'

The block universe theory says the past, present and future all exist — and are equally real — in a four-dimensional block where the passing of time is an illusion.

www.abc.net.au

There is a philosophical (not scientific) idea that actuality is also an indexical, like space and time. This idea, called modal realism or extréme modal realism, posits that all counterfactual worlds actually exist, but are only actual to their own inhabitants. This has something in common with quantum many worlds but is motivated by philosophy whereas quantum many worlds is strongly indicated by science though, as yet, cannot be confirmed or falsified.

Where are these inhabitants that exist in a counterfactual world? A philosophical idea is no more than somebody's imagination put into a form that gives it more status than it deserves. Actuality is what is manifested in the world we see. We don't live in other worlds. My question is how do any of these far-out theories add anything to our quality of life? That's what I'm interested in.

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl is stuck in a karmic conditioned causal loop. Probably unaware. Repetitive conditioned responses. Deterministic predictable responses.

Are you saying hard determinism is self fulfilling? That’s a kind thought. Let it be true for PG, since she is determined to believe it. But the same quality (self fulfilling) must be granted to the free willies as well, right?
Or are we all, or just some of us, allowed to impose our beliefs upon others? That gets pretty messy.

Determinism and free will for the devotees is fulfilling in the sense a belief in god is fulfilling.

Also from Buddhism the trick is to get above tt all and avoid going down 'illusory' butterfat holes. Easier said then done.

How can we easily get above murder, especially if it is our loved one that is murdered? Teach me how enlightened Buddha?

I am not a teacher, I took away some useful things from Buddhism. I am not a Buddhist. I ascr9be to forethought. as much as possible look at issues and problems without looking through the bias of an ideology.

What Buddha allegedly taught was to live is to suffer. It is inescapable. And we make a lot of our own suffering by what we attach to as value.

The Dali Lama's videos on violence, morality and human suffering are good incites.

In Buddhism as I understand it the goal is it ending your karmic causalities and be at rest or peace. Ending your own self imposed suffering. To me Buddhism is an old practical psychology framed in the culture of the day.

Look at the Buddhist 8 Fold Path. It predates Christianity by about 300 years.

Noble Eightfold Path - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We are violent primates. As I recall Jane Goodall was a bit shocked when she observed her beloved chimps hunt down another chimp, kill it, ad eat it. One troop will single out a chimp from another troop and kill it and eat it. They fling feces at each other when pissed off.

We are what we are. we share a lot of genes with chimps which is why we study them.

A derail to science.

I disagree that we are violent primates by nature. That is a false premise right out of the gate. We are what we are is a combination of genes and environment. Chimps may have some commonalities, but they do not share certain traits given to humans. A derail to science? There is no derail. Buddhism is a great way to learn how to cope with a hostile environment. I have nothing against this philosophy. It just doesn't help prevent the atrocities that Buddhism tries to teach us to get beyond. How in the world would I get beyond the death of my family, God forbid. This discovery prevents what Buddhism is trying to help us cope with. Wouldn't you rather not have to deal with these horrible situations before they occur rather than having to cope by practicing detachment after the fact? Just answer yes or no.

 

[pood]

There is a distinction to be made between decision making and choice. If determinism is true, decisions are made, but they are a matter of necessity, not choice.

There you go with “necessity” against. Necessity is a term of logic with a specific meaning, thus none of our choices, decisions, whatever you want to call them, can ever be necessary. But I have already shown this in detail.

 

[pood]

The notion of free will is a case false labelling, an ideology, for some folks, practically a religion.

The idea that everything was pre-determined at the big bang and we are meat robots of it is the actual religion, a secularized version of Calvinistic pre-destination. .The secular religion is called hard determinism.

 

[aupmanyav]

The idea that everything was pre-determined at the big bang and we are meat robots of it is the actual religion, a secularized version of Calvinistic pre-destination. The secular religion is called hard determinism.

That disregards the Theory of Uncertainty and Quantum Mechanics.

 

[pood]

The idea that everything was pre-determined at the big bang and we are meat robots of it is the actual religion, a secularized version of Calvinistic pre-destination. The secular religion is called hard determinism.

That disregards the Theory of Uncertainty and Quantum Mechanics.

I take it you mean that hard determinism disregards these things? Because it does. This was discussed upthread. Fundamentally, determinism is false, at the basic foundation of reality. However, as also noted, compatibilism does not need QM as a justification.