There isn't really a 'freewill problem'.

[Kharakov]

... only one mind....

You and PyramidHead could have a rewarding chat.

I thought you misspelled rewording for a second.

 

[DBT]

Yes. It is a response.

A freely chosen response.

The mind responds to ideas with other ideas. Total freedom.

What do you imagine is forcing you to accept the ideas you have?

You ignored what I said. I made no claim of being forced. Read more carefully and compose a reply that actually relates to what I said.

Funny how you quote my questions yet totally ignore them.

You chose those words freely.

Nothing forced you to choose them. You cannot demonstrate in the least that something somehow is forcing you to say the things you say.

I made no claim of force. Read more carefully. Respond to what I said. Don't just repeat assertions that are not related to what I said.

 

[untermensche]

Funny how you quote my questions yet totally ignore them.

You chose those words freely.

Nothing forced you to choose them. You cannot demonstrate in the least that something somehow is forcing you to say the things you say.

I made no claim of force. Read more carefully. Respond to what I said. Don't just repeat assertions that are not related to what I said.

With my will I am waiting until you start answering questions to take you seriously.

What do you imagine is forcing you to accept the ideas you have?

If you are not forced in some way to have your ideas you have chosen them freely.

 

[Emily Lake]

I don't think the will is like a program. A program is a linear set of instructions. The mind is the result of the massively parallel structure of the brain. It's more like an ecosystem which is constantly changing in response to internal and external conditions. So it's more similar to an analog computer in that one respect. But they are both still fundamentally deterministic.

Not necessarily. Lotsa programs out there nowadays, especially in the more complex ends of data science, aren't linear. They're purpose built to leverage parallel processing systems efficiently.

 

[Emily Lake]

On the topic of will...

One can imagine their arm moving, and move their arm. One can also imagine their arm moving, visualize it and all of the attendant sensations... and can NOT move their arm. Wouldn't that be a fairly clear application of will?

 

[Speakpigeon]

Yeah, there's a lot I am willing without much real-world result, like, stuff around the house.
EB

 

[DBT]

Funny how you quote my questions yet totally ignore them.

You chose those words freely.

Nothing forced you to choose them. You cannot demonstrate in the least that something somehow is forcing you to say the things you say.

I made no claim of force. Read more carefully. Respond to what I said. Don't just repeat assertions that are not related to what I said.

With my will I am waiting until you start answering questions to take you seriously.

What do you imagine is forcing you to accept the ideas you have?

If you are not forced in some way to have your ideas you have chosen them freely.

Even after I point out that I am not referring to force, you assert force. Are you not reading what I say?

 

[ruby sparks]

On the topic of will...

One can imagine their arm moving, and move their arm. One can also imagine their arm moving, visualize it and all of the attendant sensations... and can NOT move their arm. Wouldn't that be a fairly clear application of will?

That might be 'will' yes. But as Schopenhauer said, a person can do what they will but they cannot will what they will.

Also, it might seem to be as straightforward as your scenario, but certain experiments appear to suggest that there's other stuff going on non-consciously:

https://vimeo.com/90101368

 

[Speakpigeon]

It might seem to be so, but certain experiments suggest otherwise:

I'd like to know the likely outcome of the kind of mano a mano engagement I describe bellow.


Two alpha-male human beings are selected, both in good health, in their forties, well balanced and adjusted to their high-powered, upper-class way of life.

Both are explained how science says decisions are arrived at and it is made sure they both understand it.

Each is forcibly(1) put in a separate scanner. Both have left/right buttons they can push at will. Each is equipped with high-tech goggles showing them what's going on in the other guys' brain, specifically the spot (02:36-02.52 on the video) that will allow them to predict the other guy's decisions.

That's the set-up.

Now, each person is instructed to implement the following procedure:

1. As soon as you can predict what the other guy is going to do, push the corresponding button.

2. Receive a billion Euros in cash and you're free to go if you've pushed the same button as the other guy but at least 4s before he did or lose all your possessions and go to prison for a five-year term if the other guy pushed the same button as you but at least 4s before you did.

3. Get a beating for any outcome different than the one in step 2.

4. Get a beating every ten minutes as long as you haven't pushed any of the two buttons.

5. You don't get to come out until Step 2 is completed.

That's the procedure.


Now, can anybody tell me if science can predict if any of them is going to get a billion Euros in cash and why?

Me, I just don't know.
EB

Note 1 - It's only possible to organise that shit in Putin's Russia or SMB's Saudi Arabia for now, sorry!

 

[untermensche]

With my will I am waiting until you start answering questions to take you seriously.

What do you imagine is forcing you to accept the ideas you have?

If you are not forced in some way to have your ideas you have chosen them freely.

Even after I point out that I am not referring to force, you assert force. Are you not reading what I say?

If there is nothing forcing you to have the ideas you have then you have chosen them freely.

You just make bad choices, that is all.

Don't try to blame it on your brain.

It does not chose ideas. It just gives a mind the ability to freely choose them.

 

[Treedbear]

I don't think the will is like a program. A program is a linear set of instructions. The mind is the result of the massively parallel structure of the brain. It's more like an ecosystem which is constantly changing in response to internal and external conditions. So it's more similar to an analog computer in that one respect. But they are both still fundamentally deterministic.

Not necessarily. Lotsa programs out there nowadays, especially in the more complex ends of data science, aren't linear. They're purpose built to leverage parallel processing systems efficiently.

By massively parallel I mean that all processes and components are interacting simultaneously, as occurs in the natural environment. Each neuron makes ~10,000 connections with other neurons which continuously change configurations. That's not what parallel processors can do yet because they're mostly 2 dimensional and fixed in stone rather than organic. There's some genetic programming that goes into creating the basic structural organization, but the only program involved in learning and thinking is the evolving, adaptive reconfiguration resulting from the imperative to function efficiently and minimize conflict. You would have to say that evolution by mutation with natural selection is a program.

 

[bilby]

It might seem to be so, but certain experiments suggest otherwise:

I'd like to know the likely outcome of the kind of mano a mano engagement I describe bellow.


Two alpha-male human beings are selected, both in good health, in their forties, well balanced and adjusted to their high-powered, upper-class way of life.

Both are explained how science says decisions are arrived at and it is made sure they both understand it.

Each is forcibly(1) put in a separate scanner. Both have left/right buttons they can push at will. Each is equipped with high-tech goggles showing them what's going on in the other guys' brain, specifically the spot (02:36-02.52 on the video) that will allow them to predict the other guy's decisions.

That's the set-up.

Now, each person is instructed to implement the following procedure:

1. As soon as you can predict what the other guy is going to do, push the corresponding button.

2. Receive a billion Euros in cash and you're free to go if you've pushed the same button as the other guy but at least 4s before he did or lose all your possessions and go to prison for a five-year term if the other guy pushed the same button as you but at least 4s before you did.

3. Get a beating for any outcome different than the one in step 2.

4. Get a beating every ten minutes as long as you haven't pushed any of the two buttons.

5. You don't get to come out until Step 2 is completed.

That's the procedure.


Now, can anybody tell me if science can predict if any of them is going to get a billion Euros in cash and why?

Me, I just don't know.
EB

Note 1 - It's only possible to organise that shit in Putin's Russia or SMB's Saudi Arabia for now, sorry!

In what sense is this engagement 'hand to hand'?

 

[Emily Lake]

On the topic of will...

One can imagine their arm moving, and move their arm. One can also imagine their arm moving, visualize it and all of the attendant sensations... and can NOT move their arm. Wouldn't that be a fairly clear application of will?

That might be 'will' yes. But as Schopenhauer said, a person can do what they will but they cannot will what they will.

See, that adds a layer of "meta" that seems... I dunno... borderline solipsistic maybe? I know that's not the right term, but I'm hoping it gets the gist across. Can a person do what they will? Yes. Therefore: Will! Ta-da! Done.

This whole "what wills the will" argument seems like a distraction, and wholly unnecessary.

Also, it might seem to be as straightforward as your scenario, but certain experiments appear to suggest that there's other stuff going on non-consciously:

https://vimeo.com/90101368

Of course there's other stuff going on as well. Who thinks there isn't? It's a bit of a strawman.

 

[Learner]

I remember this doc which was quite intriguing but then I'd wonder why does 6 seconds suggest deterministic mechanisms as the reason this could "only" go one-way as a result? You could also say that you have decided 6 seconds earlier before the physical aspects of the brain finalised an action. Although this would be considered woo.

 

[DBT]

With my will I am waiting until you start answering questions to take you seriously.

What do you imagine is forcing you to accept the ideas you have?

If you are not forced in some way to have your ideas you have chosen them freely.

Even after I point out that I am not referring to force, you assert force. Are you not reading what I say?

If there is nothing forcing you to have the ideas you have then you have chosen them freely.

You just make bad choices, that is all.

Don't try to blame it on your brain.

It does not chose ideas. It just gives a mind the ability to freely choose them.

Again, I am not referring to force. I am referring to agency.

The brain as an information processor is the agent of consciousness and self.....you and your experience are whatever the brain happens to be doing.

You are not the autonomous orchestrator of brain, mind or consciousness.

There is no evidence to support your notion of autonomy.

 

[DBT]

On the topic of will...

One can imagine their arm moving, and move their arm. One can also imagine their arm moving, visualize it and all of the attendant sensations... and can NOT move their arm. Wouldn't that be a fairly clear application of will?

This whole experience is being produced by brain activity, not conscious Will as a Director, not autonomous 'self'

 

[untermensche]

If there is nothing forcing you to have the ideas you have then you have chosen them freely.

You just make bad choices, that is all.

Don't try to blame it on your brain.

It does not chose ideas. It just gives a mind the ability to freely choose them.

Again, I am not referring to force. I am referring to agency.

I know what the will is. The agency behind the thoughts we accept and many of the movements we make.

I am talking about agency too.

And if there is nothing forcing you to express the ideas you have then you have chosen them freely.

The agency of your mind has selected them freely.

 

[Speakpigeon]

<snip>
I'd like to know the likely outcome of the kind of mano a mano engagement I describe bellow.
<snip>
Both have left/right buttons they can push at will.
<snip>

In what sense is this engagement 'hand to hand'?

They both have to push the buttons.

Presumably using fingers, which are part of hands.

And these people would be selected to be highly motivated, even single-minded about what they do, so they'll quickly forget they're not really in a position to lay their hands on the opposition.

That's essential in my view.

We may even promise the winner he will be able to throw a punch at the other guy or to throttle him a bit.

That's mankind for you.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

See, that adds a layer of "meta" that seems... I dunno... borderline solipsistic maybe? I know that's not the right term, but I'm hoping it gets the gist across. Can a person do what they will? Yes. Therefore: Will! Ta-da! Done.

This whole "what wills the will" argument seems like a distraction, and wholly unnecessary.

It's essentially shifting what we're talking about. From willing to causing.

So, sure, it's legitimate to try and explain what is causing our willing, but that doesn't somehow make our will vanish into thin air. It just means we understand ourselves better. Even much better.

And we're free to call our will 'free will'. We do it all the time.

We could do the same as denying free will by saying the the real world isn't real at all. Of course, in a sense, it isn't. But the world we know we call it 'real', and we do that essentially to make the distinction with any of our most fanciful ideas, like, say, God or whatever. The expression "real world" is usually not a claim that we absolutely know the world we know to be somehow more real than the appearance we have of a real world. It's just a pragmatic expression that most people understand well enough to get going about our lives. No big deal.
EB

 

[Emily Lake]

On the topic of will...

One can imagine their arm moving, and move their arm. One can also imagine their arm moving, visualize it and all of the attendant sensations... and can NOT move their arm. Wouldn't that be a fairly clear application of will?

This whole experience is being produced by brain activity, not conscious Will as a Director, not autonomous 'self'

Conscious Brain Activity = Will

I've been following, and I still don't follow your reasoning here. Especially since you've already repeatedly acknowledged that will exists within the auspices of brain function - it's a thing. And you've acknowledged that decision-making is a legitimate and real brain function. You just object to "free" will... on a really narrow definition of "free" that nobody but you has intended.

And now you're stepping back from even acknowledging will?

FFS, just go ahead and say "this whole experience is being produced by cells, not by brain activity as a director or an autonomous unit".