why are we still talking about Free Will? We know our decisions reflect our genetically endowed instincts. You dont need a degree in Physics to disproe Free WIll, only a Degree in Neuropsychology and a minor in Philosophy.
You should read up on Michael Hoffman's ego death theory which he expounds at his website EgoDeath(dot)com. It concerns the issue of free will vs. determinism. You know, it's the insight of Hinduism that there is no self or no doer. This idea is referred to as nondoership or akarma. Fatalism is condtradictorily viewed as a liberation in eastern philosophies and religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism.
I seem to have a basic disagreement with empirical science. Tho, I think only a philosopher will agree with me, there is something very bothersome about empirical science and its subject/object divide of theory. For example speed of light is c. But there is no reason why this constant will be absolute. We have an observer looking at the light c. But it soon turns out that if you don't believe in the division of subject/object then the light c doesn't seem all that set in stone.
How can you possibly get a link between quantum Indeterminacy (quantum level) and the workings of the human mind (biochemical level), umless you have a unifying theory (the holy grail)?
But yes, a most important question ... the most important question! Do we think and therefore we are or are there thoughts with no thinker. I'd love to know the answer to that one ...... or am I just a running program that exhibits the desire to know the answer with no "real" desire at all?
Thing is, the only point of free will that is interesting is whether or not you are able to make choices in any sense. And if your choices are automatically determined by some quantum randomness, or are automatically determined by clasical physics, they're still being determined. So what's the big deal.
Dan Dennet has a strong argument for free will even without indeterminancy (quantum or otherwise)
@neoaeonian "they're still being determined" - that's what I always say.
Thanks for the Dennet's link; interesting video though a bit too long. He is proficient in hypnosis: some guys fell asleep. If seriously, his argument jumps from reasoning to emotions (that fix some gaps) and back.
I didn't get how my parts are not free and I am free. If all my limbs are tied down (separately), should I be free anyway?
If a whole made of n parts isn't free and with n+1 becomes free, what is n?
Dennet defined free will as, "can you correctly be held responsible (good bad) for your actions?" If yes, you have free will. If not, then you don't. He then (painfully) demonstrated that indeterminancy wasn't required for you to yet be responsible for your actions. I was convinced, but maybe I was hypnotized as well.
I think you'd like "The Mind and the Brain." Schwartz&Begley
I thought quntum indetermincy (as promoted by the cophenhagen interpretation) was as tenative as axioms for set theory.
Anyways what do we know about the brain function after the onslaught of relativity and quntum mechanics? Doesn't the electrons of the neurons operate as close to fast as speed of light?
@neoaeonian I tought 300mph was the average speed. Electron going around in a atom is a fog of quntum mechanics.(Too bad to see my pet project go down.)
Well, axiom of set theory is "as established as a theory gets" as well. Both theory is driven by mathematical intuition, not proof.
@Israe5l I'm not sure where you are going with this. Relativity plays no role at brain speeds and sizes. C = 186,000 mph, much faster than 300 mph. Quantum indeterminancy is demonstrated in black body radiation and in the double slit experiment, and is independant of the copenhagen interpretation. I don't know the axiom of set theory, but I don't expect the word "tentative" to mean, "as established as it gets." I'm not following your point here. What are you trying to say?
@neoaeonian By indeterminancy I mean probablistic. Copenheagen interpretation is probablistic. A"complete" theory is a theory thats deterministic. Although, we may not come to a complete theory the goal of science should be to strive towards a complete one-to-one description. There are physicists that are investigating with that standard. To me at this point seems all "weight of physics and mathematics".
@neoaeonian As for axioms of set theory. The set theory came about to avoid Russell's paradox. So, they made rules of how to create sets that will not fall into Russells paradox. But they didn't find the axioms. They just made them up. The philosophers didn't like it. Because the classical notion of mathematics is that they "discover" mathematical truth. But here we just made up.
@Israe5l I was familiar with Russell's paradox, but not the name. Looking it up again, I still don't see the link to free will, and am still not sure what you're concluding.
Russell's paradox, to me, seems a Use-Mention Error problem. Dan Dennett describes UME's @30:30 - @35:00 in v=D_9w8JougLQ
Whether RP is a UME or not, I still don't understand what you're saying. Are you switching topics to denounce quantum indeterminancy, or is this an insight into free will that I am not getting.
@neoaeonian A "tentative as" B. Just means that A "is likely as" B. So if you are a hard-core science believer the two A and B are very likely. But to me there is an equal bit of a skepticism with both Quantum Mechanics and Set Theory.
I'm a hardcore science believer, so I disagree, but I follow what you were saying now.
I agree that there is skepticism that the Copenhagen interpretation is the right one. But there are at least 7 other interpretations that would match the experimental data. I prefer many-worlds.
If you're skeptical of Copenhagen, you're in good company. If you're skeptical of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, then you're in a small group, with no experimental confirmation.
@neoaeonian So the speed of electrons can be light speed at least in the vacume. And 300 mph is only an empirical measurement. Can change. I am ocupied now is to what are constants? Speed of light? Which is a little bit different from the speed of electrons. Its a theoretical constant. But perhaps light speed can change. Then along with that alot of things will change. Brain function is one.
@Israe5l The speed of electricity is light speed, but electrons are much slower than that, as they have mass. The speed of light in a vacuum (C) is constant, but going through mediums (water, air) it slows down, slightly. Some quantum experiments have produced faster speed over short distance.. However, astronical results, and the results of nuclear decays indicate that the speed of light has not varied noticeably since the big bang. Brain function has no known relationship to C.
I thought quntum indetermincy (as promoted by the cophenhagen interpretation) was as tenative as axioms for set theory.
Anyways what do we know about the brain function after the onslaught of relativity and quntum mechanics? Doesn't the electrons of the neurons operate as close to fast as speed of light?
Check out the Google Tech Talk on Quantum Computing. You do need a basic understanding of Quantum mechanics before diving in. Watch from start to finish, the last video contains information you are looking for.
I have checked out quantum computing. I've researched a lot of the implications of it...It is NOT a reality yet, of course and there are a lot of reasons for that...Not the least being some of the drawbacks of stability in parallel computing when applied to the quantum.
I don' know if I've watched the exact Google Tech talk you're referring to...I'll try a search under the key words you mention, but it would help us all if you could just post a link to the video here "/watch..."
i go along with wholethinker's logic in his respose to dyna. in my personal opinion the very notion of free will is a fallacy. quantum mechanics rely on set priniciples. just because we don't know all the laws that govern there practice, doesn't mean they aren't there.
Hi K. Thank you for posting your thoughts. As you may know I'm also highly interested in this. I'm still learning the terms and such so I can speak this 'language' but my interest stems from my studies in Cognitive Psychology and Language Development. Plus, I'm a geeky kinda girl ;-) Off to watch the video you suggested.
Interesting. I am only recently aware of the free will and determinacy debate (I must have been off school that day, lol). I am very reluctantly won over by the determinacy argument. I say reluctantly as part of me, probably my ego, doesn't want to let go of the notion of having free will. I have been racking my feeble mind for a flaw in the argument or away to agree with the argument but still allow for free will. I am keen to learn more. (thumbed up)
No, pretty much all the "difficulties" in the debate boil down to the fact that "free wiil" is an ill-defined concept. Depending on how you define it, it is either trivially simple to show that it exists, or it is trivially simple to show that it doesn't.
Ok, this example might be bad (didn't watch the linked video yet) but wouldn't cancer caused by radiation be a thing that changes your mind about the world due to a quantum event (the radiation)?
I mean by arguing from a non-degenerated (sorta 'still exists in all it's possible states') point of view of, for instance, a radioactive Uranium-isotope - it is both emitting and not-emitting radiation. If this radiation causes cancer in my body... isn't this a causal link between thought and quantum?
No offense, 2B, but I once received a great piece of advice that I'm going to follow here - any time anyone starts talking and mentions "quantum" anything, and they are not a physicist - run.
If someone who claim to be a physicist starts talking about quantum physics and you, for whatever reason, don't want to talk about quantum physics, just close your eyes and ask him/her to stop being so degenerated.
However, I got a warning to add here: if the person is also a good practical joker, you might find yourself without clothes in a vacuum chamber. And don't to this to a person who's not talking about physics in a bar. I got punched because I did... never saw it coming.
The argument does not require a causal relationship between an indeterminate universe and free will, it only requires establishment of an indeterminate universe. Since an indeterminate universe opens the door to free will, and since all our senses indicate that we have free will, it is necessary for those who believe there is no free will to provide evidence for their argument which does not rely on universal determinism. No one has.
@wholethinker No, I mean that a deterministic universe precludes free will. Absent a deterministic universe, some other argument needs to be presented to refute the notion of free will. Free will is the default, since it is essentially self-evident.
@DynaCatlovesme The point is that the free will notion is not compatible with random, nor with deterministic world, see for example wiki.
Free will is explained as an agent inside of a person that makes decision. This agent cannot use any input for this purpose (it wouldn't be free) and cannot use random choice because random has nothing in common with free will. That is, the agent is producing (magically) the information out-of-nothing.
@wholethinker "Free will is explained as an agent inside of a person that makes decision. This agent cannot use any input for this purpose (it wouldn't be free)" Why? One is certainly constrained by the available options, but how could one be aware of the options without input?
"cannot use random choice because random has nothing in common with free will." How so? I can freely choose to choose at random.
@DynaCatlovesme I'm talking about the input for making the choice that is independent of the previous experience, available choices, etc., because otherwise free will can be reduced to a simple deterministic function of all these parameters and cannot be free in this case.
To choose at random you should have a random number generator which is problematic.
And also the choice is taken couple of seconds before you think you decided, as recent brain studies show. It's not a choice but awareness.
OK, if your choice is a result of all your previous states and inputs, that means there is necessity instead of freedom. Should be "free from constraints" (wiki).
"I'm a perfectly good random number generator if I choose to be" - sounds like the paradox of saying "I always lie". If you decide to be random, it's already not random, as the computer random function.
Google "is free will an illusion" and pick the wired dotcom article.
@wholethinker " if your choice is a result of all your previous states and inputs, that means there is necessity instead of freedom." That does not follow at all.
Computers don't do random because they have no way to do random. They have to be given something and told what to do with it.
Imagine I'm a computer with a program running and inputs coming. Where is my freedom of choice in this case? The choice is made in accordance with the software installed and the information received. What does not follow from what in this case?
"Computers don't do random" - that's what I mean, sorry about my English.
@wholethinker The computer can't make decisions whimsically, nor can it imagine possibilities that transcend it's programming. Humans do both with some regularity, or at least I do.
I understood that you meant computers don't do random.
@DynaCatlovesme "The computer can't make decisions whimsically" - but it can be made looking so using the pseudo random and fractal algorithms.
"Humans do both" - do or believe they do? Imagine an algorithm that makes people believing in freedom, hides the predetermined nature of everything and principal inability of making rational steps due to the insufficiency of input and computational power. If I were the demiurge, I would do so.
@wholethinker That the brain makes a decision before it is conscious of making the decision just implys to me that the brain is doing what it's suppsed to do well. If the brain made the decision before it knew there was a decision to be made, then there would be somthing to ponder...
@wholethinker you really shouldn't bother trying to enlighten this ignorant pedo. but i suppose you'd be performing a national service by distracting him from his obsession with 12 year old boys. so, thank you in advance.
@BaldySperman2 "you really shouldn't bother" - I translate it as "How dare you arguing with him!" but with an attempt to hide (even from yourself) how you adore him.
You must be 11 or 13 YO - this is the frustration of the moment, because the rogue deals only with 12 YO boys, as you said.
"in advance" - means you are expecting from me to do something, e.g. to prove that 12 YO exactly is a big mistake, one should go wider - from 11 to 13.
I don't sleep at night: have no idea how can I help.
@wholethinker what dyna is really trying to say here is that he has no control over his pedophilic behavior. unfortunately this is very typical of pederasts.
I don't think quantum indeterminacy helps at all.
The short-cut to an answer on this would be to replicate conciousness in an artificial brain, like that Markram guy is attempting with Blue Brain. I await it's spectacular failure.
Perhaps my standards are too high, but even in well respected papers on neuroscience or philosophy, the definitions, often furtively, refer back to the experiential correlates of free will. The problem is that there are assumptions built in the term which are so fundamental to our lives, that we do not easily see the inherent contradictions.
I'm very suspicious of terms which when you probe their definition, unravel like a ball of string.
@premed2 Interestingly, free will can be defined quite nicely in certain religious contexts, but then the fuzziness is transferred into the religious constructions.
To me free will is be best defined as an experiential state, that do to incomplete awareness, translates into the belief, and or wish,that one is the author, to some extent, of ones thoughts and actions.
But then I need to define "one" and "author", and I'm running out of time and space, so I'll just go to work now—no choice!
What goes on beneath the Planck Level stays below the Planck Level. Besides affecting the nature of matter and energy, there is no direct causation between QM and thought. I'll say the same thing here that I said on Pyrrho's video, I do believe that there is determinism BUT it is beyond our physical and intellectual capacity to make it useful (ie comprehend it). Therefore we have the 'sense' of Free Will that allows us to function, individually as well as collectively.
@lapispinoza Not worried interested in the research and how that relates to Self-hood and peoples imagined sense of self. Plus it isn't a lag there is no conscious decision needed at all.
As a result of what I've read I don't think a correlation can be found between free will and quantum indeterminacy. Closer to the truth is the fact that because the human brain has evolved to be this amazingly complex thing, with trillions of neurons and trillions of connections between them, this network is flexible, can create new connections as a result of previous connections, that's why we have creativity and free will. My terminology is probably not very exact, but you know what I mean.
Thanks! A clarification video......I also notice a number of people are arguing for freewill from the sense of the feeling they have of. Unfortunately this is also problematic since there is research that shows that decisions can be predicted from a fMRI scan up to 6 seconds before a decision is made. There may be a top down process involved in addition to this bottom up process. But this reveals that the sense of feeling freewill maybe an illusion also. @ Neuroscience and freewill BBC.
@wtmeighan It is amazing and confronting that the Neuroscience can tell us that even though we imagine we are making a decision, it can be predicted a full 6 seconds beforehand. That alone is so confronting.....very interesting.....e.g. even though we may ponder what chocolate to eat out of a selection, a fMRI scan can show 6 seconds before the choice we will make!
why are we still talking about Free Will? We know our decisions reflect our genetically endowed instincts. You dont need a degree in Physics to disproe Free WIll, only a Degree in Neuropsychology and a minor in Philosophy.
HedgehogRebellion 2 months ago
You should read up on Michael Hoffman's ego death theory which he expounds at his website EgoDeath(dot)com. It concerns the issue of free will vs. determinism. You know, it's the insight of Hinduism that there is no self or no doer. This idea is referred to as nondoership or akarma. Fatalism is condtradictorily viewed as a liberation in eastern philosophies and religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism.
Hanahleia 1 year ago
I seem to have a basic disagreement with empirical science. Tho, I think only a philosopher will agree with me, there is something very bothersome about empirical science and its subject/object divide of theory. For example speed of light is c. But there is no reason why this constant will be absolute. We have an observer looking at the light c. But it soon turns out that if you don't believe in the division of subject/object then the light c doesn't seem all that set in stone.
Israe5l 1 year ago
How can you possibly get a link between quantum Indeterminacy (quantum level) and the workings of the human mind (biochemical level), umless you have a unifying theory (the holy grail)?
But yes, a most important question ... the most important question! Do we think and therefore we are or are there thoughts with no thinker. I'd love to know the answer to that one ...... or am I just a running program that exhibits the desire to know the answer with no "real" desire at all?
IridescentEye 1 year ago
Thing is, the only point of free will that is interesting is whether or not you are able to make choices in any sense. And if your choices are automatically determined by some quantum randomness, or are automatically determined by clasical physics, they're still being determined. So what's the big deal.
Dan Dennet has a strong argument for free will even without indeterminancy (quantum or otherwise)
v=aKLAbWFCh1E
neoaeonian 1 year ago
@neoaeonian "they're still being determined" - that's what I always say.
Thanks for the Dennet's link; interesting video though a bit too long. He is proficient in hypnosis: some guys fell asleep. If seriously, his argument jumps from reasoning to emotions (that fix some gaps) and back.
I didn't get how my parts are not free and I am free. If all my limbs are tied down (separately), should I be free anyway?
If a whole made of n parts isn't free and with n+1 becomes free, what is n?
wholethinker 1 year ago
@wholethinker Re: (Dennet, How am I free)
Dennet defined free will as, "can you correctly be held responsible (good bad) for your actions?" If yes, you have free will. If not, then you don't. He then (painfully) demonstrated that indeterminancy wasn't required for you to yet be responsible for your actions. I was convinced, but maybe I was hypnotized as well.
I think you'd like "The Mind and the Brain." Schwartz&Begley
Intriguing conclusion via neuroanatomy.
neoaeonian 1 year ago
I thought quntum indetermincy (as promoted by the cophenhagen interpretation) was as tenative as axioms for set theory.
Anyways what do we know about the brain function after the onslaught of relativity and quntum mechanics? Doesn't the electrons of the neurons operate as close to fast as speed of light?
I miss your real face.
Israe5l 1 year ago
@Israe5l Re: electrons of neurons operate as close to fast as the speed of light.
.
Much slower. The fastest signal travels down long axons at about 300 mph. The fastest signal refresh rate is around 200 herz.
.
Re: quantum indeterminancy .. tentative
.
It's attached to the heisenberg (momentumXposition) uncertainty principle, and is about as established as a theory gets.
neoaeonian 1 year ago
@neoaeonian I tought 300mph was the average speed. Electron going around in a atom is a fog of quntum mechanics.(Too bad to see my pet project go down.)
Well, axiom of set theory is "as established as a theory gets" as well. Both theory is driven by mathematical intuition, not proof.
Israe5l 1 year ago
@Israe5l I'm not sure where you are going with this. Relativity plays no role at brain speeds and sizes. C = 186,000 mph, much faster than 300 mph. Quantum indeterminancy is demonstrated in black body radiation and in the double slit experiment, and is independant of the copenhagen interpretation. I don't know the axiom of set theory, but I don't expect the word "tentative" to mean, "as established as it gets." I'm not following your point here. What are you trying to say?
neoaeonian 1 year ago
@neoaeonian By indeterminancy I mean probablistic. Copenheagen interpretation is probablistic. A"complete" theory is a theory thats deterministic. Although, we may not come to a complete theory the goal of science should be to strive towards a complete one-to-one description. There are physicists that are investigating with that standard. To me at this point seems all "weight of physics and mathematics".
Israe5l 1 year ago
@neoaeonian As for axioms of set theory. The set theory came about to avoid Russell's paradox. So, they made rules of how to create sets that will not fall into Russells paradox. But they didn't find the axioms. They just made them up. The philosophers didn't like it. Because the classical notion of mathematics is that they "discover" mathematical truth. But here we just made up.
Israe5l 1 year ago
@Israe5l I was familiar with Russell's paradox, but not the name. Looking it up again, I still don't see the link to free will, and am still not sure what you're concluding.
Russell's paradox, to me, seems a Use-Mention Error problem. Dan Dennett describes UME's @30:30 - @35:00 in v=D_9w8JougLQ
Whether RP is a UME or not, I still don't understand what you're saying. Are you switching topics to denounce quantum indeterminancy, or is this an insight into free will that I am not getting.
neoaeonian 1 year ago
@neoaeonian A "tentative as" B. Just means that A "is likely as" B. So if you are a hard-core science believer the two A and B are very likely. But to me there is an equal bit of a skepticism with both Quantum Mechanics and Set Theory.
Israe5l 1 year ago
@Israe5l OK, I follow.
I'm a hardcore science believer, so I disagree, but I follow what you were saying now.
I agree that there is skepticism that the Copenhagen interpretation is the right one. But there are at least 7 other interpretations that would match the experimental data. I prefer many-worlds.
If you're skeptical of Copenhagen, you're in good company. If you're skeptical of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, then you're in a small group, with no experimental confirmation.
neoaeonian 1 year ago
@neoaeonian very cool
Israe5l 1 year ago
@neoaeonian Correction. A "is as tentative as" B. Just means that A "is as likely as" B...
Israe5l 1 year ago
@neoaeonian So the speed of electrons can be light speed at least in the vacume. And 300 mph is only an empirical measurement. Can change. I am ocupied now is to what are constants? Speed of light? Which is a little bit different from the speed of electrons. Its a theoretical constant. But perhaps light speed can change. Then along with that alot of things will change. Brain function is one.
Israe5l 1 year ago
@Israe5l The speed of electricity is light speed, but electrons are much slower than that, as they have mass. The speed of light in a vacuum (C) is constant, but going through mediums (water, air) it slows down, slightly. Some quantum experiments have produced faster speed over short distance.. However, astronical results, and the results of nuclear decays indicate that the speed of light has not varied noticeably since the big bang. Brain function has no known relationship to C.
neoaeonian 1 year ago
I thought quntum indetermincy (as promoted by the cophenhagen interpretation) was as tenative as axioms for set theory.
Anyways what do we know about the brain function after the onslaught of relativity and quntum mechanics? Doesn't the electrons of the neurons operate as close to fast as speed of light?
Israe5l 1 year ago
Check out the Google Tech Talk on Quantum Computing. You do need a basic understanding of Quantum mechanics before diving in. Watch from start to finish, the last video contains information you are looking for.
fresheyeball 1 year ago
@fresheyeball
I have checked out quantum computing. I've researched a lot of the implications of it...It is NOT a reality yet, of course and there are a lot of reasons for that...Not the least being some of the drawbacks of stability in parallel computing when applied to the quantum.
I don' know if I've watched the exact Google Tech talk you're referring to...I'll try a search under the key words you mention, but it would help us all if you could just post a link to the video here "/watch..."
2bsirius 1 year ago
i go along with wholethinker's logic in his respose to dyna. in my personal opinion the very notion of free will is a fallacy. quantum mechanics rely on set priniciples. just because we don't know all the laws that govern there practice, doesn't mean they aren't there.
hume12345 1 year ago
lol..is that 'crazy talk'?
xy11xy 1 year ago
Hi K. Thank you for posting your thoughts. As you may know I'm also highly interested in this. I'm still learning the terms and such so I can speak this 'language' but my interest stems from my studies in Cognitive Psychology and Language Development. Plus, I'm a geeky kinda girl ;-) Off to watch the video you suggested.
SaelPalani 1 year ago
You're so obviously a real truthseeker. I can almost see the soil under your fingernails from how you've been digging all these years. :)
philhellenes 1 year ago
Interesting. I am only recently aware of the free will and determinacy debate (I must have been off school that day, lol). I am very reluctantly won over by the determinacy argument. I say reluctantly as part of me, probably my ego, doesn't want to let go of the notion of having free will. I have been racking my feeble mind for a flaw in the argument or away to agree with the argument but still allow for free will. I am keen to learn more. (thumbed up)
fishypaw 1 year ago
@fishypaw Then you may wish to see the video I just (reluctantly) uploaded: "Debunking Determinism" watch?v=5cNj7tz6xE0
DynaCatlovesme 1 year ago
@DynaCatlovesme jim, when are you going to realize that no one wants to hear your pseudo-intellectual droning. nice child rapist glasses, freak.
BaldySperman2 1 year ago
No, pretty much all the "difficulties" in the debate boil down to the fact that "free wiil" is an ill-defined concept. Depending on how you define it, it is either trivially simple to show that it exists, or it is trivially simple to show that it doesn't.
CousinoMacul 1 year ago
Ok, this example might be bad (didn't watch the linked video yet) but wouldn't cancer caused by radiation be a thing that changes your mind about the world due to a quantum event (the radiation)?
I mean by arguing from a non-degenerated (sorta 'still exists in all it's possible states') point of view of, for instance, a radioactive Uranium-isotope - it is both emitting and not-emitting radiation. If this radiation causes cancer in my body... isn't this a causal link between thought and quantum?
MegaYippie 1 year ago
No offense, 2B, but I once received a great piece of advice that I'm going to follow here - any time anyone starts talking and mentions "quantum" anything, and they are not a physicist - run.
AncientAtheist 1 year ago
@AncientAtheist
If someone who claim to be a physicist starts talking about quantum physics and you, for whatever reason, don't want to talk about quantum physics, just close your eyes and ask him/her to stop being so degenerated.
However, I got a warning to add here: if the person is also a good practical joker, you might find yourself without clothes in a vacuum chamber. And don't to this to a person who's not talking about physics in a bar. I got punched because I did... never saw it coming.
MegaYippie 1 year ago
The argument does not require a causal relationship between an indeterminate universe and free will, it only requires establishment of an indeterminate universe. Since an indeterminate universe opens the door to free will, and since all our senses indicate that we have free will, it is necessary for those who believe there is no free will to provide evidence for their argument which does not rely on universal determinism. No one has.
DynaCatlovesme 1 year ago
@DynaCatlovesme "indeterminate universe opens the door to free will"
Do you mean the randomness helps proving there is free will?
wholethinker 1 year ago
@wholethinker No, I mean that a deterministic universe precludes free will. Absent a deterministic universe, some other argument needs to be presented to refute the notion of free will. Free will is the default, since it is essentially self-evident.
DynaCatlovesme 1 year ago
@DynaCatlovesme The point is that the free will notion is not compatible with random, nor with deterministic world, see for example wiki.
Free will is explained as an agent inside of a person that makes decision. This agent cannot use any input for this purpose (it wouldn't be free) and cannot use random choice because random has nothing in common with free will. That is, the agent is producing (magically) the information out-of-nothing.
wholethinker 1 year ago
@wholethinker "Free will is explained as an agent inside of a person that makes decision. This agent cannot use any input for this purpose (it wouldn't be free)" Why? One is certainly constrained by the available options, but how could one be aware of the options without input?
"cannot use random choice because random has nothing in common with free will." How so? I can freely choose to choose at random.
DynaCatlovesme 1 year ago
@DynaCatlovesme I'm talking about the input for making the choice that is independent of the previous experience, available choices, etc., because otherwise free will can be reduced to a simple deterministic function of all these parameters and cannot be free in this case.
To choose at random you should have a random number generator which is problematic.
And also the choice is taken couple of seconds before you think you decided, as recent brain studies show. It's not a choice but awareness.
wholethinker 1 year ago
@wholethinker "I'm talking about..." I don't quite follow, and I don't think it follows.
"To choose at random you should have a random number generator" Why? I'm a perfectly good random number generator if I choose to be.
"the choice is taken couple of seconds before you think you decided" is relevant how?
DynaCatlovesme 1 year ago
@DynaCatlovesme "I don't quite follow, and I don't think"
OK, if your choice is a result of all your previous states and inputs, that means there is necessity instead of freedom. Should be "free from constraints" (wiki).
"I'm a perfectly good random number generator if I choose to be" - sounds like the paradox of saying "I always lie". If you decide to be random, it's already not random, as the computer random function.
Google "is free will an illusion" and pick the wired dotcom article.
wholethinker 1 year ago
@wholethinker " if your choice is a result of all your previous states and inputs, that means there is necessity instead of freedom." That does not follow at all.
Computers don't do random because they have no way to do random. They have to be given something and told what to do with it.
DynaCatlovesme 1 year ago
@DynaCatlovesme "does not follow"
Imagine I'm a computer with a program running and inputs coming. Where is my freedom of choice in this case? The choice is made in accordance with the software installed and the information received. What does not follow from what in this case?
"Computers don't do random" - that's what I mean, sorry about my English.
wholethinker 1 year ago
@wholethinker The computer can't make decisions whimsically, nor can it imagine possibilities that transcend it's programming. Humans do both with some regularity, or at least I do.
I understood that you meant computers don't do random.
DynaCatlovesme 1 year ago
@DynaCatlovesme "The computer can't make decisions whimsically" - but it can be made looking so using the pseudo random and fractal algorithms.
"Humans do both" - do or believe they do? Imagine an algorithm that makes people believing in freedom, hides the predetermined nature of everything and principal inability of making rational steps due to the insufficiency of input and computational power. If I were the demiurge, I would do so.
wholethinker 1 year ago
@wholethinker That the brain makes a decision before it is conscious of making the decision just implys to me that the brain is doing what it's suppsed to do well. If the brain made the decision before it knew there was a decision to be made, then there would be somthing to ponder...
DynaCatlovesme 1 year ago
@DynaCatlovesme I'll try to find an article on this topic. Unfortunately, I didn't marked it.
wholethinker 1 year ago
@wholethinker Sorry, should be I haven't bookmarked it.
Actually the main article is a link "See my wired dotcom story" at the beginning of the page.
wholethinker 1 year ago
@wholethinker I read the wired article, the interview and the abstract. Perhaps the actual research paper would alter my take, but I doubt it.
DynaCatlovesme 1 year ago
@wholethinker you really shouldn't bother trying to enlighten this ignorant pedo. but i suppose you'd be performing a national service by distracting him from his obsession with 12 year old boys. so, thank you in advance.
BaldySperman2 1 year ago
@BaldySperman2 "you really shouldn't bother" - I translate it as "How dare you arguing with him!" but with an attempt to hide (even from yourself) how you adore him.
You must be 11 or 13 YO - this is the frustration of the moment, because the rogue deals only with 12 YO boys, as you said.
"in advance" - means you are expecting from me to do something, e.g. to prove that 12 YO exactly is a big mistake, one should go wider - from 11 to 13.
I don't sleep at night: have no idea how can I help.
wholethinker 1 year ago
@wholethinker you pegged it! you won a hat, buddy.
BaldySperman2 1 year ago
@wholethinker what dyna is really trying to say here is that he has no control over his pedophilic behavior. unfortunately this is very typical of pederasts.
BaldySperman2 1 year ago
@BaldySperman2 You've opened my eyes.
My life has changed since then.
wholethinker 1 year ago
@wholethinker you're always welcome.
BaldySperman2 1 year ago
I don't think quantum indeterminacy helps at all.
The short-cut to an answer on this would be to replicate conciousness in an artificial brain, like that Markram guy is attempting with Blue Brain. I await it's spectacular failure.
MensRifleAssociation 1 year ago
Is there an unambiguous definition of free will?
Perhaps my standards are too high, but even in well respected papers on neuroscience or philosophy, the definitions, often furtively, refer back to the experiential correlates of free will. The problem is that there are assumptions built in the term which are so fundamental to our lives, that we do not easily see the inherent contradictions.
I'm very suspicious of terms which when you probe their definition, unravel like a ball of string.
premed2 1 year ago
@premed2 Interestingly, free will can be defined quite nicely in certain religious contexts, but then the fuzziness is transferred into the religious constructions.
To me free will is be best defined as an experiential state, that do to incomplete awareness, translates into the belief, and or wish,that one is the author, to some extent, of ones thoughts and actions.
But then I need to define "one" and "author", and I'm running out of time and space, so I'll just go to work now—no choice!
premed2 1 year ago
What goes on beneath the Planck Level stays below the Planck Level. Besides affecting the nature of matter and energy, there is no direct causation between QM and thought. I'll say the same thing here that I said on Pyrrho's video, I do believe that there is determinism BUT it is beyond our physical and intellectual capacity to make it useful (ie comprehend it). Therefore we have the 'sense' of Free Will that allows us to function, individually as well as collectively.
HeavyTrafficAhead 1 year ago
@lapispinoza Not worried interested in the research and how that relates to Self-hood and peoples imagined sense of self. Plus it isn't a lag there is no conscious decision needed at all.
wtmeighan 1 year ago
As a result of what I've read I don't think a correlation can be found between free will and quantum indeterminacy. Closer to the truth is the fact that because the human brain has evolved to be this amazingly complex thing, with trillions of neurons and trillions of connections between them, this network is flexible, can create new connections as a result of previous connections, that's why we have creativity and free will. My terminology is probably not very exact, but you know what I mean.
dewinthemorning 1 year ago
Thanks! A clarification video......I also notice a number of people are arguing for freewill from the sense of the feeling they have of. Unfortunately this is also problematic since there is research that shows that decisions can be predicted from a fMRI scan up to 6 seconds before a decision is made. There may be a top down process involved in addition to this bottom up process. But this reveals that the sense of feeling freewill maybe an illusion also. @ Neuroscience and freewill BBC.
wtmeighan 1 year ago
@wtmeighan It is amazing and confronting that the Neuroscience can tell us that even though we imagine we are making a decision, it can be predicted a full 6 seconds beforehand. That alone is so confronting.....very interesting.....e.g. even though we may ponder what chocolate to eat out of a selection, a fMRI scan can show 6 seconds before the choice we will make!
wtmeighan 1 year ago