The Science and Mechanics of Free Will

[fromderinside]

The difference is there are only spatial steps involving matter without any need to refer to a dimension, time, that doesn't exist.

This is just a play with words. In your model there are four space dimensions. One of which behaves differently than the others (as seen in the transformations of relativity).
Why not call that dimension time? That how most scientists see it anyway?

Oh no. The elements are in their places. Its just that when we see them in an order we infer time. Just presume all elements of a sequence are there uniquely only when the are so counted a particular way. No need to infer time when numbering them in a particular order.

Of course most scientists see it that way. Still both Einstein and Newton were aware that time doesn't stand alone and must be inferred. Place, dimension, order, space. Why can't we just use these to construct a lawful mechanics (dynamics)?

 

[fromderinside]

Saying "processes" in the brain is to say nothing.

Absolutely nothing.

It is a non-specific filler like "stuff". Why don't you just say "stuff" in the brain?

Because it aint stuff!!! I agree that processes is a vague term but it is also very precise in that I defenitely doesnt mean "stuff".

We are not things. We are processes. The decisions we make and the feelings we feels are the dynamics of the brain.

Are't we a process because things have minimums like Planck size, Planck location, etc. To make them work together we choose to intervene time rather than use number and Planck minimums. Location one can have a maximum dimension or it becomes place two. If both places exist it could just be a matter of recognizing an order which follows the rules. We should be able to choose any order that so exists. Counting cannot exceed a certain number of objects or it becomes meaningless because to do more would require the objects to exceed maximum dimension as objects.

 

[untermensche]

Saying "processes" in the brain is to say nothing.

Absolutely nothing.

It is a non-specific filler like "stuff". Why don't you just say "stuff" in the brain?

Because it aint stuff!!! I agree that processes is a vague term but it is also very precise in that I defenitely doesnt mean "stuff".

We are not things. We are processes. The decisions we make and the feelings we feels are the dynamics of the brain.

Calling them "processes" is to explain nothing about them or even to describe what is going on.

 

[Juma]

This is just a play with words. In your model there are four space dimensions. One of which behaves differently than the others (as seen in the transformations of relativity).
Why not call that dimension time? That how most scientists see it anyway?

Oh no. The elements are in their places. Its just that when we see them in an order we infer time. Just presume all elements of a sequence are there uniquely only when the are so counted a particular way. No need to infer time when numbering them in a particular order.

Thats is just handwaving. Show how the equations of relativity folloes from this hypotesis.

 

[ryan]

It is not known if there is only one physically possible choice.

Can you simultaneously stand and sit? Turn left and turn right? Jump up and fall down? Close your eyes and keep them open? Write a reply and not write a reply? What is not known here? If you make one choice, to stand, that negates the choice to keep sitting in that very instance in time...of course a moment later you may feel the impulse to stand and do that. But that is not the point of what I said.

The statement asks if there is any reason why I couldn't have chosen differently. With Newtonian mechanics, the answer is no because there is only one physical option. QM gives a possible freedom to have chosen differently. For example, a photon ends up at some point on the screen in the double slit experiment. Interpretations of QM says that the photon could have hit a different part on the screen.

If QM is a factor in decision making, then there is nothing that was stopping the brain from choosing differently. That's all I am saying.

Why then is it so common for people to regret decisions, sometimes bitterly, if they could have chosen differently? Why is the daydream ''if only I could go back in time and change this or that decision' a common theme, if we had the ability to have chose differently in those moments in time?

If I choose to gamble, and then the outcome is not what I hoped for, then I might regret the decision to gamble.

 

[DBT]

There does't have to be. What is well supported by evidence is that the brain is indeed producing the experience of mind/consciousness by means of electrochemical activity. How it does this is not understood. It is thought to be the patterns of firings that form the experience of consciousness.

So according to you we don't have to understand things to claim understanding?

Please don't twist what I say. I said that we don't have to understand everything about the brain to understand something. We understand something, but not everything....we do not understand how the brain forms mental imagery/consciousness.

That is not understood.

This does not mean that nothing is understood. It does not mean that it is not clear that the brain is indeed forming and generating consciousness. That is clear, and of course more, the roles of the senses, stuctures, etc.

 

[untermensche]

So according to you we don't have to understand things to claim understanding?

Please don't twist what I say. I said that we don't have to understand everything about the brain to understand something. We understand something, but not everything....we do not understand how the brain forms mental imagery/consciousness.

That is not understood.

This does not mean that nothing is understood. It does not mean that it is not clear that the brain is indeed forming and generating consciousness. That is clear, and of course more, the roles of the senses, stuctures, etc.

We don't understand ONE THING about how the activity of nerve cells becomes something like a mind.

Not ONE CLUE. We don't even know where to begin.

So therefore we don't have the slightest clue about the mechanism that choices are made with. The mind.

Therefore there is nothing we can say about "free will".

 

[ryan]

Please don't twist what I say. I said that we don't have to understand everything about the brain to understand something. We understand something, but not everything....we do not understand how the brain forms mental imagery/consciousness.

That is not understood.

This does not mean that nothing is understood. It does not mean that it is not clear that the brain is indeed forming and generating consciousness. That is clear, and of course more, the roles of the senses, stuctures, etc.

We don't understand ONE THING about how the activity of nerve cells becomes something like a mind.

Not ONE CLUE. We don't even know where to begin.

So therefore we don't have the slightest clue about the mechanism that choices are made with. The mind.

Therefore there is nothing we can say about "free will".

You seem to be alluding to dualism. If you assume dualism, then sure, there is a very mysterious sense of mind and body. The mind would be like a ghost in the machine, literally. With dualism, I agree with you that things are very mysterious.

But assuming dualism does not make it true. Scientifically speaking, dualism does not exist, or at best it is irrelevant. If dualism/pluralism does not exist, then free will becomes a lot more easier to pin down and discuss.

 

[untermensche]

We don't understand ONE THING about how the activity of nerve cells becomes something like a mind.

Not ONE CLUE. We don't even know where to begin.

So therefore we don't have the slightest clue about the mechanism that choices are made with. The mind.

Therefore there is nothing we can say about "free will".

You seem to be alluding to dualism. If you assume dualism, then sure, there is a very mysterious sense of mind and body. The mind would be like a ghost in the machine, literally. With dualism, I agree with you that things are very mysterious.

But assuming dualism does not make it true. Scientifically speaking, dualism does not exist, or at best it is irrelevant. If dualism/pluralism does not exist, then free will becomes a lot more easier to pin down and discuss.

The brain is not the mind. The brain is a bunch of cells. The mind is something experienced.

And the mind is what we use to make decisions with.

Not the brain.

 

[bilby]

The whole question only arose because pre-scientific thinking held dualism to be obvious.

Dualism, therefore free will.

Nature abhors a vacuum, therefore aether.

Flames are a substance fleeing burning matter, therefore phlogiston.

This is an easy error to make when you start from false but unquestioned assumptions. The real mystery is why we are still bothering to discuss it at all; and the answer to that question is 'faith'. Faith doesn't require religion; it just needs a person who is desperate to believe something that is untrue (or desperate to avoid an unpleasant truth).

 

[fromderinside]

Oh no. The elements are in their places. Its just that when we see them in an order we infer time. Just presume all elements of a sequence are there uniquely only when the are so counted a particular way. No need to infer time when numbering them in a particular order.

Thats is just handwaving. Show how the equations of relativity folloes from this hypotesis.

Not ready yet. Barbour's book isn't easy for me. He wrote this book in an effort to build a frame with which to reconcile relativity with QM.

 

[ryan]

You seem to be alluding to dualism. If you assume dualism, then sure, there is a very mysterious sense of mind and body. The mind would be like a ghost in the machine, literally. With dualism, I agree with you that things are very mysterious.

But assuming dualism does not make it true. Scientifically speaking, dualism does not exist, or at best it is irrelevant. If dualism/pluralism does not exist, then free will becomes a lot more easier to pin down and discuss.

The brain is not the mind. The brain is a bunch of cells. The mind is something experienced.

And the mind is what we use to make decisions with.

Not the brain.

But you can't just come out and state this without some kind of evidence or rational support; nobody would ever do that and then expect anyone to believe them. Even religious people won't believe something without at least some kind of an explanation.

 

[ryan]

Thats is just handwaving. Show how the equations of relativity folloes from this hypotesis.

Not ready yet. Barbour's book isn't easy for me. He wrote this book in an effort to build a frame with which to reconcile relativity with QM.

Relativity already uses time in a static sense. Time is just another dimension in relativity.

A good test of this theory is to see if it can explain this black hole paradox. The paradox is to imagine people on Earth watching a ship unfortunately being sucked into a black hole. The people on the ship experience this to be a very fast occurrence. But people on the Earth will see the ship move slower and slower towards the black hole without ever reaching it. The people in the ship experience entering the event horizon, but people on Earth will never see them enter it.

A final and interesting thought is that the people on the ship - assume they can still somehow observe - will see events happen on Earth infinitely fast. Yeah major problem in physics.

 

[fromderinside]

Relativity already uses time in a static sense. Time is just another dimension in relativity.

Really? Where is this dimension? As far as I can tell its measuring change in matter confounded with place. Time dilatation problem? Get rid of time. Substitute change in minimum size application of energy. As matter gets near black hole now (minimum size) becomes very large.

 

[bilby]

Not ready yet. Barbour's book isn't easy for me. He wrote this book in an effort to build a frame with which to reconcile relativity with QM.

Relativity already uses time in a static sense. Time is just another dimension in relativity.

A good test of this theory is to see if it can explain this black hole paradox. The paradox is to imagine people on Earth watching a ship unfortunately being sucked into a black hole. The people on the ship experience this to be a very fast occurrence. But people on the Earth will see the ship move slower and slower towards the black hole without ever reaching it. The people in the ship experience entering the event horizon, but people on Earth will never see them enter it.

A final and interesting thought is that the people on the ship - assume they can still somehow observe - will see events happen on Earth infinitely fast. Yeah major problem in physics.

You just described what would happen from the POV of both sets of observers; Where's the problem? I see no problem here at all, much less a 'major' problem. We can use our theory to predict exactly what each set of observers will see/experience; Unless we have (or obtain) experimental evidence that contradicts the predictions of the theory, there's no problem here at all.

 

[untermensche]

The brain is not the mind. The brain is a bunch of cells. The mind is something experienced.

And the mind is what we use to make decisions with.

Not the brain.

But you can't just come out and state this without some kind of evidence or rational support; nobody would ever do that and then expect anyone to believe them. Even religious people won't believe something without at least some kind of an explanation.

Do you have a mind?

Do you have direct experience of a mind?

Do you use it to make decisions?

I don't have a clue what you're talking about.

 

[ryan]

Relativity already uses time in a static sense. Time is just another dimension in relativity.

Really? Where is this dimension? As far as I can tell its measuring change in matter confounded with place. Time dilatation problem? Get rid of time. Substitute change in minimum size application of energy. As matter gets near black hole now (minimum size) becomes very large.

We are on the surface of the temporal dimension, like a 2 dimensional ant is floating on the surface of the ocean. There is vertical movement, but it is really hard for the ant to notice.

 

[ryan]

Relativity already uses time in a static sense. Time is just another dimension in relativity.

A good test of this theory is to see if it can explain this black hole paradox. The paradox is to imagine people on Earth watching a ship unfortunately being sucked into a black hole. The people on the ship experience this to be a very fast occurrence. But people on the Earth will see the ship move slower and slower towards the black hole without ever reaching it. The people in the ship experience entering the event horizon, but people on Earth will never see them enter it.

A final and interesting thought is that the people on the ship - assume they can still somehow observe - will see events happen on Earth infinitely fast. Yeah major problem in physics.

You just described what would happen from the POV of both sets of observers; Where's the problem? I see no problem here at all, much less a 'major' problem. We can use our theory to predict exactly what each set of observers will see/experience; Unless we have (or obtain) experimental evidence that contradicts the predictions of the theory, there's no problem here at all.

The paradox is that 2 different realities happen. One happens, but the other never happens.

 

[ryan]

But you can't just come out and state this without some kind of evidence or rational support; nobody would ever do that and then expect anyone to believe them. Even religious people won't believe something without at least some kind of an explanation.

Do you have a mind?

Do you have direct experience of a mind?

Do you use it to make decisions?

I have my reasons why I believe dualism exists, but you are going to have to do a lot better than this if you are going end one of the biggest questions in philosophy.

 

[untermensche]

Do you have a mind?

Do you have direct experience of a mind?

Do you use it to make decisions?

I have my reasons why I believe dualism exists, but you are going to have to do a lot better than this if you are going end one of the biggest questions in philosophy.

Why the evasion? And my position is we can't address the philosophical question until we know what a mind is.

My position is not that I have answered anything. I am merely pointing out the situation as it exists.

We make decisions with our minds.