There isn't really a 'freewill problem'.

[DBT]

The desire/prompt or urge to think, deliberate and act. Conscious will is formed in response to stimuli...a problem arises, a need, a desire or a fear, which is thought about and acted upon. Stimuli always comes first, unconscious, then propagated/nerve impulses, processed/neural networks and responded to, motor action, both in conscious and unconscious forms. All being brain activity, including conscious experience.

Based on that, it doesn't seem like we're particularly far apart in perspective on this. It's more a matter of nuances in definition than anything else. At the end of the day, it looks like both of us accept that problem-solving and decision-making actually exists as a process, and prompts to deliberate and make decisions also exist.

What are we arguing about again?

That this is supposed to be free will, I guess. Some folks say it is. They are wrong because conscious will is subject to the same neuronal information processing as consciousness in general, including motor actions. It is decision making, the selection of options based on a given set of criteria, needs wants, desires, fears. The exceptions being reflex loops, glitches and pathologies, tics, twitches, and other non chosen actions. Which obviously are not what anybody would think of as free will.

 

[untermensche]

I shall need to do that, just as soon as you need to show how I must have at least two cricket balls.

This is called totally not understanding the situation. As lost as a person could be. The analogy does not fit in the least. I am not claiming a ball is two things. I am talking about a specific thing, and it is not an object; awareness.

Is there awareness of a cricket ball without both the thing that can be aware AND the ball, the representation of it?

Two things that are different properties of the same thing can be one thing.

This is pointless babbling that has no connection to anything under discussion.

You have no argument. None.

Awareness is when one thing is aware of another thing.

That is the only way awareness occurs. A dichotomy, a separation must exist.

To claim it can occur in some other way is absolute nonsense.

This is a very simple matter. But it is important.

Yet people think they can talk about awareness or consciousness without understanding it.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Fifth, how could you possibly know that your second-level impression that your first-level impression that experience confirms your model is proof that there's something out there that conforms to your model?

The model conforms to reality, not the other way around.

That we think we have model doesn't mean there's really something it's the model of, or that this something is really like what the model says it is.

Still, it's perfectly rational to take your beliefs at face value if you don't know what else you could possibly do.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I certainly don't know you're something real out there.

And yet, if you knew I'm real, I should probably know you are.

So, no, sorry, I don't buy that.
EB

Hmm. Maybe you're winning your argument. I find myself more and more inclined to treat you as if you don't exist

I could dare you to do just that but no, your belief in me is probably unshakeable and behaving in contradiction with your beliefs would be potentially hazardous.
EB

 

[Treedbear]

...
I would have just said that I mean once you've realized why it's an illusion it's no longer an illusion. But to me realizing something means the same thing as realizing why. Or am I missing something.

If I'm tricked by a trick and later learn I was tricked, why is it still not a trick, because it's not tricking me? No, it's still a trick, just not effective on me anymore.

Consider an illusion, an optical illusion like a straw in a cup of water that appears to be bent as light reflects off it. I am tricked by the illusion into thinking the straw is bent when it's really not. Once I learn that the straw really isn't in fact bent, I'm no longer tricked by the illusion, which is still an optical illusion.

If you mean simply coming to believe on faith that the straw isn't really bent then yes, I suppose it's still an illusion. But if you come to know why it appears to be bent when it really isn't then it ceases to be an illusion and it's simply what you expect to see. It would become a different illusion if it appeared to be straight because it would appear that there was no water in the glass when you had thought there was.

 

[fast]

...
I would have just said that I mean once you've realized why it's an illusion it's no longer an illusion. But to me realizing something means the same thing as realizing why. Or am I missing something.

If I'm tricked by a trick and later learn I was tricked, why is it still not a trick, because it's not tricking me? No, it's still a trick, just not effective on me anymore.

Consider an illusion, an optical illusion like a straw in a cup of water that appears to be bent as light reflects off it. I am tricked by the illusion into thinking the straw is bent when it's really not. Once I learn that the straw really isn't in fact bent, I'm no longer tricked by the illusion, which is still an optical illusion.

If you mean simply coming to believe on faith that the straw isn't really bent then yes, I suppose it's still an illusion. But if you come to know why it appears to be bent when it really isn't then it ceases to be an illusion and it's simply what you expect to see. It would become a different illusion if it appeared to be straight because it would appear that there was no water in the glass when you had thought there was.

No, knowledge just gives you the awareness that it's an illusion. The illusion is in things not appearing how they actually are. Let's say I put a straight straw in a cup of water. Then, while looking away, the sun changes position and when I look at the straw, it appears bent. The illusion is in the altered appearance from how things actually are. When you pull the straw out, you learn that its an illusion, so when you replace the straw and it again appears bent, you have knowledge that it's not really bent. It still appears bent and is still an optical illusion. It's just that you know it's an illusion whereas the next person might not know.

 

[Speakpigeon]

You're both somewhat right and somewhat wrong!

illusion
n.
1. a misleading impression.
2. the condition of being deceived.
3. misleading perception, esp. a visual one: optical illusion
3. (Psychology) a perception that is not true to reality by being somehow altered in the mind of the subject.

So there is a sense in which an optical illusion, in particular, while still an illusion, stops deceiving us because we know it is misleading and in what way it is misleading, even though it remains clearly somewhat misleading.
EB

 

[bilby]

I shall need to do that, just as soon as you need to show how I must have at least two cricket balls.

This is called totally not understanding the situation. As lost as a person could be. The analogy does not fit in the least. I am not claiming a ball is two things. I am talking about a specific thing, and it is not an object; awareness.

Is there awareness of a cricket ball without both the thing that can be aware AND the ball, the representation of it?

Two things that are different properties of the same thing can be one thing.

This is pointless babbling that has no connection to anything under discussion.

You have no argument. None.

Awareness is when one thing is aware of another thing.

That is the only way awareness occurs. A dichotomy, a separation must exist.

To claim it can occur in some other way is absolute nonsense.

This is a very simple matter. But it is important.

Yet people think they can talk about awareness or consciousness without understanding it.

OK, so we've established that you REALLY don't like the idea that anything can be aware of itself.

But you have given no reason or evidence, other than your revulsion. So why should anyone else give a shit about your (strongly held) opinion?

I understand that it disgusts you to even consider the possibility that you could be wrong; but that doesn't actually protect you in any way from being wrong.

 

[Treedbear]

You're both somewhat right and somewhat wrong!

illusion
n.
1. a misleading impression.
2. the condition of being deceived.
3. misleading perception, esp. a visual one: optical illusion
3. (Psychology) a perception that is not true to reality by being somehow altered in the mind of the subject.

So there is a sense in which an optical illusion, in particular, while still an illusion, stops deceiving us because we know it is misleading and in what way it is misleading, even though it remains clearly somewhat misleading.
EB

I somewhat agree. I think it might be a matter of context. When the illusion has to do with commonplace experiences then it might be taken as actually useful. Such as the shadow on the chess board illusion where the white and dark squares actually are of the same shade of gray. That's useful, and indeed is the correct interpretation for recognizing what the scene represents. And then there's the illusion that the Sun is revolving around the Earth when seen in the sky. We now know that this is not the case but it doesn't stop us from refering to the Sun coming up and going down. The thing is this is a philosophy forum and we're talking about free will. This is an abstract concept we're trying to understand from an objective point of view. So I think the case still can be made that if one realizes (i.e.; understands) what free will actually is that it ceases to be an illusion.

 

[DBT]

It's not so much that free will is an illusion, considering how will is formed, conscious will cannot be free. It is what it is as a result of prior information processing shaping and forming our experience of the world and self, thought and response. It's nothing more than a feel good term - ''wow, just wow, we have *Free Will* by Gosh, isn't that Swell.''

An ideology rather than reality.

 

[Kharakov]

So you totally agree with my position here?

It's totally non sequitur, like all of the true statements you make. Whatever.

 

[Emily Lake]

The desire/prompt or urge to think, deliberate and act. Conscious will is formed in response to stimuli...a problem arises, a need, a desire or a fear, which is thought about and acted upon. Stimuli always comes first, unconscious, then propagated/nerve impulses, processed/neural networks and responded to, motor action, both in conscious and unconscious forms. All being brain activity, including conscious experience.

Based on that, it doesn't seem like we're particularly far apart in perspective on this. It's more a matter of nuances in definition than anything else. At the end of the day, it looks like both of us accept that problem-solving and decision-making actually exists as a process, and prompts to deliberate and make decisions also exist.

What are we arguing about again?

That this is supposed to be free will, I guess. Some folks say it is. They are wrong because conscious will is subject to the same neuronal information processing as consciousness in general, including motor actions. It is decision making, the selection of options based on a given set of criteria, needs wants, desires, fears. The exceptions being reflex loops, glitches and pathologies, tics, twitches, and other non chosen actions. Which obviously are not what anybody would think of as free will.

I'm confused. I'm fine with your definition of free will - the desire or prompt to think, deliberate, and act. I think it's a perfectly serviceable definition. Are you saying that your definition of free will doesn't actually exist?

 

[Emily Lake]

Fifth, how could you possibly know that your second-level impression that your first-level impression that experience confirms your model is proof that there's something out there that conforms to your model?

The model conforms to reality, not the other way around.

That we think we have model doesn't mean there's really something it's the model of, or that this something is really like what the model says it is.

Still, it's perfectly rational to take your beliefs at face value if you don't know what else you could possibly do.
EB

This is inane.

We create models of ACTUAL THINGS THAT OBJECTIVELY EXIST.

Some of those models aren't very good models - they don't conform to reality, meaning that they don't predict observation very well.

Reality doesn't conform to our models - reality doesn't alter in order to fit our models and to create observations to fit our predictions.

Either one of us is completely failing to communicate a concept... or one of our concepts is fundamentally wrong. Let's assume it's a communication error - would you expand and explain what you mean more clearly?

- - - Updated - - -

I certainly don't know you're something real out there.

And yet, if you knew I'm real, I should probably know you are.

So, no, sorry, I don't buy that.
EB

Hmm. Maybe you're winning your argument. I find myself more and more inclined to treat you as if you don't exist

I could dare you to do just that but no, your belief in me is probably unshakeable and behaving in contradiction with your beliefs would be potentially hazardous.
EB

Am I correct in inferring that English is not your native language?

On the presumption that my inference is correct, let me add some clarity: treating you as if you don't exist is substantially different than believing that you don't exist. Ponder that for a moment, if you will.

 

[Emily Lake]

...
I would have just said that I mean once you've realized why it's an illusion it's no longer an illusion. But to me realizing something means the same thing as realizing why. Or am I missing something.

If I'm tricked by a trick and later learn I was tricked, why is it still not a trick, because it's not tricking me? No, it's still a trick, just not effective on me anymore.

Consider an illusion, an optical illusion like a straw in a cup of water that appears to be bent as light reflects off it. I am tricked by the illusion into thinking the straw is bent when it's really not. Once I learn that the straw really isn't in fact bent, I'm no longer tricked by the illusion, which is still an optical illusion.

If you mean simply coming to believe on faith that the straw isn't really bent then yes, I suppose it's still an illusion. But if you come to know why it appears to be bent when it really isn't then it ceases to be an illusion and it's simply what you expect to see. It would become a different illusion if it appeared to be straight because it would appear that there was no water in the glass when you had thought there was.

I disagree. Understanding how an illusion works doesn't make it not an illusion. The observation of the bent straw remains - the perception of the straw as bent will persist. You now understand how the illusion works, and you can identify the perception of a bent straw as an illusion... but that doesn't make it not an illusion. It's still an illusion. You *know* that the straw isn't really bent, just as you *know* that the stage magician didn't actually make his assistant disappear. But it's still an illusion.

That's kinda what illusion means

 

[Emily Lake]

It's not so much that free will is an illusion, considering how will is formed, conscious will cannot be free. It is what it is as a result of prior information processing shaping and forming our experience of the world and self, thought and response. It's nothing more than a feel good term - ''wow, just wow, we have *Free Will* by Gosh, isn't that Swell.''

An ideology rather than reality.

As opposed to the ideology that it's all perfectly determined and "wow, just wow, we have no control and it's all out of our hands and there's no possibility of anyone doing anything other than what they do! Isn't that swell!"

 

[Treedbear]

It's not so much that free will is an illusion, considering how will is formed, conscious will cannot be free. It is what it is as a result of prior information processing shaping and forming our experience of the world and self, thought and response. It's nothing more than a feel good term - ''wow, just wow, we have *Free Will* by Gosh, isn't that Swell.''

An ideology rather than reality.

Given that the topic produces so much anxiety with regard to how human society would survive without it, along with its codependence with religion and the patriotic notion of freedom, I think that's a valid conclusion.

 

[Treedbear]

If you mean simply coming to believe on faith that the straw isn't really bent then yes, I suppose it's still an illusion. But if you come to know why it appears to be bent when it really isn't then it ceases to be an illusion and it's simply what you expect to see. It would become a different illusion if it appeared to be straight because it would appear that there was no water in the glass when you had thought there was.

I disagree. Understanding how an illusion works doesn't make it not an illusion. The observation of the bent straw remains - the perception of the straw as bent will persist. You now understand how the illusion works, and you can identify the perception of a bent straw as an illusion... but that doesn't make it not an illusion. It's still an illusion. You *know* that the straw isn't really bent, just as you *know* that the stage magician didn't actually make his assistant disappear. But it's still an illusion.

That's kinda what illusion means

I was remembering a an illusion I saw at an amusement park when I was only about 10 years old. It baffled for years. Then when I was in my 40's or so I went to a technology symposium and someone had a more rudimentary one set up as part of an exhibit. The original one had a brass faucet (just the faucet with valve) suspended from 3 strings and there was a fairly good stream of water coming out and into a bucket. Well the 2nd setup has just the faucet hanging in mid air with the steam and bucket. It was immediately obvious that the faucet was just supported on the end of a clear plastic tube the bottom end of which was connected to a small pump in the bucket. Duh! The illusion was destroyed without the superfluous supporting string in the original. I will never see it that way again. But it feels good anyway having resolved the problem.

 

[DBT]

That this is supposed to be free will, I guess. Some folks say it is. They are wrong because conscious will is subject to the same neuronal information processing as consciousness in general, including motor actions. It is decision making, the selection of options based on a given set of criteria, needs wants, desires, fears. The exceptions being reflex loops, glitches and pathologies, tics, twitches, and other non chosen actions. Which obviously are not what anybody would think of as free will.

I'm confused. I'm fine with your definition of free will - the desire or prompt to think, deliberate, and act. I think it's a perfectly serviceable definition. Are you saying that your definition of free will doesn't actually exist?

It wasn't my definition of 'free will' but 'will' - just 'will'

 

[Emily Lake]

That this is supposed to be free will, I guess. Some folks say it is. They are wrong because conscious will is subject to the same neuronal information processing as consciousness in general, including motor actions. It is decision making, the selection of options based on a given set of criteria, needs wants, desires, fears. The exceptions being reflex loops, glitches and pathologies, tics, twitches, and other non chosen actions. Which obviously are not what anybody would think of as free will.

I'm confused. I'm fine with your definition of free will - the desire or prompt to think, deliberate, and act. I think it's a perfectly serviceable definition. Are you saying that your definition of free will doesn't actually exist?

It wasn't my definition of 'free will' but 'will' - just 'will'

Fair enough. What do you think distinguishes 'will' from 'free will'?

 

[fast]

The illusion was destroyed.

No no no. What you should say is alas, the mystery is resolved!

ETA: or the illusion is understood

If you work on a very hard math problem and finally come to the solution, it's still a math problem.