There isn't really a 'freewill problem'.

[bilby]

It's a pretty prevalent and pervasive shared delusion, I suppose. And one that doesn't suffer from the myriad of interpretations that we get with things like religion, where the codified version of "truth" is reinvented by consensus on a regular basis, reinterpreted by each adherent, and applied in wildly differing ways by every actor.

With the "illusion" of choice, however, there's a persistent perception that extends through every aspect of our existence. It pervades our language, our social structures, our view of justice, fairness, and responsibility. It is implicit in our every interaction with each other. It underlies the very discussion we're having at the moment. Even those who truly believe that it's fully deterministic and that choice is a mass delusion shared by quadrillions of people throughout the entirety of human history cannot help but interact and discuss the topic in a way that implicitly acknowledges the existence of choice.

Simply saying "Well, humans are frequently wrong about things" isn't really as compelling an argument as you might think... not when weighed against the entire body of human history, knowledge, and behavior.

Meh. People are consistently of the opinion that velocities can be added by simple arithmetic; that heavy objects fall faster than light ones; and that substance dualism is obviously true. But they are consistently and uniformly wrong about those things.

That they imagine themselves to have 'choice' requires no further explanation - unless and until you can demonstrate 'choice' as a real thing, needing an explanation. Identifying other errors wherein people are less consistent, falls a VERY long way short of demonstrating choice as a real thing.

It's neither consistent nor uniform. More to the point, there isn't an entire species that has evolved all of its ways of interaction and social organization on the premise that any of those things exist. Those are all irrelevant and immaterial with respect to how our species behaves, how our language works, how our societies work, and everything we know about how all humans function both currently and for all of known history.

I'd say it's a bit of a difference in magnitude, wouldn't you?

No, I wouldn't.

It is bloody obvious to anyone who cares to look that nature abhors a vacuum. It's also completely untrue.

Obviousness, of any magnitude, is not a path to truth.

 

[bilby]

You wonder why people care if they think there is no ability to make a free choice, a choice that is not forced in any way?

If they honestly have the faith that nothing they do is a free choice then why try to convince another person of anything?

That we try and try to convince others of our thoughts is because we have freely chosen them and therefore think they are important and true.

These pretenders in not believing in free will can easily been seen through. They don't really believe it for a second. That is why they care what other people think.

Pretty much.

The fact that we're having this 30+ page argument rather implies that free will exists. Unless someone wants to make a compelling argument for how we're all destined to participate in this thread at this time, and are incapable of doing anything else? Because that seems far, far, far more like woo to me than simply acknowledging that choice is real.

It's very,very unlikely that any given person will win the lottery. But that does not allow me to conclude that all people who claim to have won the lottery are liars.

Assuming that there is no choice, then no matter what we are doing, it is exactly as implausible as anything else we could have been doing.

Our participation here was not predictable in advance; But that doesn't mean that it is evidence that we chose to be here, any more than the lottery numbers are evidence that the person supervising the draw was choosing which numbers came out. 5, 15, 3, 21, 6, and 42 had only a one in five hundred million chance of having been the six numbers drawn. Clearly something that unlikely couldn't happen without a conscious choice!

 

[untermensche]

You wonder why people care if they think there is no ability to make a free choice, a choice that is not forced in any way?

If they honestly have the faith that nothing they do is a free choice then why try to convince another person of anything?

That we try and try to convince others of our thoughts is because we have freely chosen them and therefore think they are important and true.

These pretenders in not believing in free will can easily been seen through. They don't really believe it for a second. That is why they care what other people think.

Pretty much.

The fact that we're having this 30+ page argument rather implies that free will exists. Unless someone wants to make a compelling argument for how we're all destined to participate in this thread at this time, and are incapable of doing anything else? Because that seems far, far, far more like woo to me than simply acknowledging that choice is real.

It's very,very unlikely that any given person will win the lottery. But that does not allow me to conclude that all people who claim to have won the lottery are liars.

Assuming that there is no choice, then no matter what we are doing, it is exactly as implausible as anything else we could have been doing.

Our participation here was not predictable in advance; But that doesn't mean that it is evidence that we chose to be here, any more than the lottery numbers are evidence that the person supervising the draw was choosing which numbers came out. 5, 15, 3, 21, 6, and 42 had only a one in five hundred million chance of having been the six numbers drawn. Clearly something that unlikely couldn't happen without a conscious choice!

There is the subjective evidence that being here is a choice.

Unless you are at gunpoint.

If the ideas in your head were not freely chosen you should just stop defending them.

Just stop forever.

That is entirely possible.

 

[Copernicus]

Saying that two animals can perceive an "experience" is tantamount to saying that their perceptions are the same, which I think is wrong. Experience is an interpretation of perceptions.

.....

Perceptions are interpretations.

Have we reached a point of semantic argument here, rather than discussion of concepts?

You seem to have gone down the rabbit hole, picking apart my choice of specific words (even when the concept being represented by those words seems pretty clear). Then you lambaste me for using jargon... by using more jargon to show me how much more knowledgeable about that jargon you are. I'm not going to challenge that - my knowledge is admittedly entry level. It's not wrong, but it's still pretty basic.

I'm not trying to tell you that it is wrong, in principle, to use technical language, but I thought we were getting pulled away from the central issue here by going into the details of how unsupervised training of statistical clustering algorithms worked. Everyone understands that low-level processing in brains involves neurons that facilitate and inhibit activation. It is fairly easy to come up with methods for simulating that kind of interaction in computer systems, but how does that relate to high level cognitive functions that involve millions of neurons? In particular, how does it relate to the issue of "free will"? Where does it help us understand the difference between the behavior of an automaton and that of a free agent? It seems to me that the reasoning process behind that line of argument is engaging in an implicit genetic fallacy. There is a difference between the behavior of the components of a system and the overall behavior of the system itself. After all, brains are not "neuron soup". They are highly structured machines, whose functions we know a lot about but still can't fully comprehend. Understanding neural networks my tell us something about how the individual components of the brain work, but decision-making seems to be something that happens at a much higher level of brain function.

Does your objection have anything more to it than that? If so, please elaborate so I can respond without the parsing and unnecessary sidebars.

Well, I was more concerned about your remarks on randomness. Why do you believe that randomness is relevant to this discussion of free will? It seemed to me that you were confusing randomness with unpredictability. Human behavior is not fully predictable, but it is predictable up to a point. Where could randomness play a role in the process of making a choice? Decision-making strikes me as a fully determined process, and that is why we can build robots that make decisions based on situational awareness of their surroundings. That is, in fact, what a simple missile guidance system does.

 

[Kharakov]

You know who had a freewill problem? Ughaibu.


hahahahah fast!:

fast wrote:

Assuming that there are 1a) statements about laws of nature and 1B) laws of nature, (inventions and discoveries respectively), and assuming that there are 2a) laws of science (which are purportedly statements/inventions), then what I yearn to know is what 2b is. Any idea?

​

Jesus fucking christ, what the fuck is wrong with you?

hahahahaha that is hilarious.

 

[fast]

I remember that, lol

 

[DBT]

It doesn't follow...you still cannot manipulate conditions according to your will.

Who has claimed that anyone can manipulate conditions according to their will?

This is tantamount to saying "free will doesn't exist because you can't just decide to defy gravity!"

The claim was that quantum fluctuations allow for non determined decisions...the purpose of my remark was to point out that quantum effects on decision making cannot be chosen. If the outcome is random or undesired, it has no relationship to what people commonly think of as being free will

And yet it's still being chosen.

Not consciously. Nor is it subject to will. That is the point.

 

[DBT]

I have repeatedly described the reasons why it is the structural and electrochemical state of a brain that determines or governs its behavioural output. Chemical changes alter consciousness. Structural changes alter consciousness. Electrical changes alter consciousness. Memory failure disrupts consciousness, and if progressive, completely unravels consciousness to the point where the sufferer no longer is able to recognize self or others, objects or events, only meaningless, unrecognizable sensation remaining, colours, shapes and events that cannot be understood...

Okay, I agree with all of that, but it's also incomplete - consciousness alters chemicals balances too. As woo as it sounds, there is at least some degree of effectiveness from things like meditation, visualization, and mental rehearsing.

Meditation, visualization, mental rehearsing, etc, are all brain activities that follow due process. There is no form of conscious activity that is not being formed and generated by the brain in response to some stimuli, which may or may not be conscious stimuli.

 

[Val]

What the fuck? I asked you a question, not give you an answer. What do you think this is, dubba fockin jippirdy?

You asked an absurd question and got the answer you deserved.

Where did your arm come from?

From what did it emerge?

This is what you wrote:

Of course all biological entities and all their structures have "emerged".

I then asked, "From what?".

In other words, just in case English isn't your mother tongue and you are having trouble, what I asked is:

"From what did all biological entities and their structures emerge?" (as a matter of course, I might add).

So seeing as it is a matter of course, kindly don't repeat my original question and turn it into a rhetorical answerless statement. It is a matter of course, after all, innit? Did it emerge from matter? Did it emerge from "quantum properties" of matter? What?

You see, suddenly you had to think a little bit deeper about the bollocks you're regurgitating, and when that didn't sit well, your immediate reaction was a dissonance-denying attempt at a sidestep.

Do you think I'm fucking stupid? I assure you, sir, that THAT is not a rhetorical question. I suppose I should give you the benefit of the doubt but a lifetime of pack-a-day means I can't hold my breath for all that long.

 

[Val]

Anyhows, I want to touch on the OP. (No, not that way, I'm not into chronofetishists)

Here's my objection.

I don't think it matters whether it is possible or not to go back in time to a prior state of the universe. I think it's irrelevant and thus a red herring insofar why people cling to notions of free will.

We have to acknowledge that it is unknown whether it is possible or impossible to step back to a prior cosmic state, but it makes no difference regardless. The fact of the matter is that the present has a past (unless you're a last-femtosecondist), and inductively that implies that the present is a past of the future. A hard determinist would say it is THE past of THE future.

So whether we go back in time or not is besides the point - we don't have to because we have that cusp of notional decision-making time right here and now. We don't HAVE to go back in time to prove the point either way, we can do it now.

So right now, what's to stop you from visualising a white bear? Nothing. You've just seen it in your mind's eye, if you can read and understand English, know what a bear looks like and what a white bear ought to look like.

You're still seeing the bear aintcha?

Anyway, I'm digressing. Because we have a view of the past (i.e a working memory), and we are able to analyse cause-and-effect as it relates to events that have happened, we are tricked into thinking that we can analyse cause-and-effect as it relates to the future in an unconstrained way.

We think, "if only I'd done this or said that instead" &c, we delude ourselves into thinking that we can make positive choices going forward. But it's psychological legerdemain. Our notion of free will is a side effect of having a working memory, and the more powerful and capacious the working memory, the greater the appearance of free will, and not just in us.

Ferinstance, kittens will gleefully attack bees and wasps, until the message is driven home that it's a bad idea. An adult cat that has never been stung by a bee will not be able to draw upon past associations to create the impression of choosing to avoid a bee. But after the fact, it will have the irresistable force of past experience to drive its behaviour in future. We're no different - except we're also stupid enough to have a view on our view and that's where the shit starts.

 

[untermensche]

This is what you wrote:

Of course all biological entities and all their structures have "emerged".

I then asked, "From what?".

In other words, just in case English isn't your mother tongue and you are having trouble, what I asked is:

"From what did all biological entities and their structures emerge?" (as a matter of course, I might add).

I read the question.

It is as absurd as asking; From where did your arm emerge?

The issue is the emergence of biological structures. They do not emerge from somewhere or from something. They emerge because of something, because of the processes we call evolution.

 

[Val]

So emergence is caused?

because of the processes we call evolution.

So, as an embryo, evolution made me grow arms and legs?

 

[untermensche]

So emergence is caused?

Did your arm emerge because of causes?

So, as an embryo, evolution made me grow arms and legs?

Evolution is what caused you to have genes and the biological processes which enabled the emergence of your arm.

 

[holist]

Er, Sir!

I'm sorry if this has already been covered, but I don't have time to read the whole thread now.

"The fact is that any given state of the universe, or even the relevant light cone, can only occur once."

What is the explanation for that?

It seems to me that if you take absolute time (say, time since the big bang, or whatever) as descriptive parameter of the universe, the statement is trivial: it is only ever a specific moment in absolute time once. But if you don't (and i'd be tempted to give absolute time special treatment at least), then it becomes questionable: if you think of the complete universe statespace (less absolute time) and that universe vector meandering around it, why is it inconceivable for the line it describes to have loops? Highly unlikely, perhaps, but why (particularly in a specific lightone!) are you certain there are no loops in it? I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I guess I'm missing something.

 

[Val]

@Untermensche, No, it was a rolling forward of present state.

ETA you don't know your arse from your face when it comes to Evolution. Evolution is a result, it isn't a process.

Did you know, your arse formed first?

 

[ryan]

No, but they are indefeasible, ...

so are scientific observations used for research

Are they? can you give me an example of a indefeasible observation being used for research? Perhaps I have misunderstood.

I meant that one has to take a scientist's word for an observation for research the same way one has to take the word of the report. Of course you may not if there is reason the person is lying or delusional.

non repeatable ...

Of course they are repeatable and are repeated.

I guess that depends on what that pronoun 'they' refers to: if it is one's heterophenomenological reports, to use Dennett's term then sure.

Yes, I think so. Because, from what I understand about Dennett is that he is a materialist/physicalist.

If it is one's personal experience of phenomenology, there are not only no criteria for judging that two people are having the same experience, there are no criteria for judging that the same person is having the same experience from moment to moment. As Wittgenstein wittily put it, it would be like buying a second copy of the same paper to check if the first paper was correct. There simply isn't any criteria for judgement except the experience itself.

As I mentioned in the last post, I think that Ned is probably taking a physicalist's account or a one-to-one epiphenomenalist's account of phenomenal experience. In the case of epiphenomenalism, every unique physical correlate would match to a unique conscious state.

Then what scientists understand science, observations, research, etc. to be is also subjective. We must assume certain premises.

Ahh, are you pulling global scepticism out of the hat here? I hope not. There is a vast difference between 1) someone saying 'right we are measuring that tree' a second person saying, 'which tree' and the first person marking the tree with paint and saying 'that one'. and (2) trying to reach agreement on which private, indefeasible phenomenal seeming we are talking about. Surely you see how objective agreement is possible in the one case and not the other? Now imagine a crowd of people trying to agree on what their colour terms refer to, especially if some are colour blind. Surely you see the difference?

I am not a scientist (yet) and don't know exactly how a method for "conscious state comparisons" could be made. Have you read about Ned's actual choice of methodology, namely signal detection theory?

This is all I can do today.

 

[untermensche]

Er, Sir!

I'm sorry if this has already been covered, but I don't have time to read the whole thread now.

"The fact is that any given state of the universe, or even the relevant light cone, can only occur once."

What is the explanation for that?

It seems to me that if you take absolute time (say, time since the big bang, or whatever) as descriptive parameter of the universe, the statement is trivial: it is only ever a specific moment in absolute time once. But if you don't (and i'd be tempted to give absolute time special treatment at least), then it becomes questionable: if you think of the complete universe statespace (less absolute time) and that universe vector meandering around it, why is it inconceivable for the line it describes to have loops? Highly unlikely, perhaps, but why (particularly in a specific lightone!) are you certain there are no loops in it? I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I guess I'm missing something.

Did you freely sift through ideas in your mind to write that or was it forced in some way?

How do evolved biological structures force ideas to emerge since ideas existed after humans existed?

When the brain forces something it is like dreams. Fleeting images, emotions, sensations, not ideas.

Ideas are forced by something else. By the "I".

 

[Val]

Where did the "I" emerge from? What caused it (according to you)?

And round and round we go.

 

[ruby sparks]

The fact that we're having this 30+ page argument rather implies that free will exists. Unless someone wants to make a compelling argument for how we're all destined to participate in this thread at this time, and are incapable of doing anything else? Because that seems far, far, far more like woo to me than simply acknowledging that choice is real.

Personally, I might make that argument. I don't think it's woo, for the simple reason that no one that I have ever met or read can adequately explain how it could be otherwise. As such, it seems to me the woo might be the saying the situation is 'somehow, magically' otherwise.

That does not mean that there isn't agency and choice-making, obviously. But in the final analysis it's all determined and/or random. Or at least, it would seem to have to be, there never having been a good alternative process set out.

To me, the choices and the agency are sophisticated, but not actually, ultimately free, because they can't escape causality, whether determined or random, or be uncaused causes. There is no way for them to do that, it seems. Unless you can describe it, in which case I think you will be the first person ever to do so convincingly.

Ultimately, events are driven by prior causality. That would appear, from everything that we currently understand, to include everything in the universe. It would be nice to think of ourselves as an exception, but it seems like special pleading, likening ourselves to the god we imagine, or the other way around.

 

[Val]

Look at me balls! Just look at 'em! Fockin look!