Free will ~ A product of imagination

Not at all.
Just trouble following what you consider to be logic.

I wouldn't use the word determined by, as the product is determined by the process of imagining, which adheres to the laws of physics.
But the "product" (or subject) of imagination need not obey the laws of physics because it is not real.

As soon as you introduce choice you need to show that choice does not need to follow the laws of physics.
This is thus begging the question.
If choice does follow the laws of physics, then the subject matter of the imagination is irrelevant to the question of freewill.
Just because choice makes the laws of physics irrelevant to the subject matter of the imagination, does not make physics irrelevant to the process of choice.

You are question begging here.
And you certainly have not shown this to be sound.
Your argument might be as sound as saying:
1. All pigs can fly.
2. All pigs must have wings (for how else is [1] possible?).
You are also moving your argument of 1 from the product of imagination to, in 3, suddenly including choice and decisions with no justification, since your [2] does not, as explained, allow you to suddenly remove the need for obeying the laws of physics onto the process of choice.

Your logic is flawed and invalid, as shown above.
Merely repeating the same line of argument will not alter this assessment.
If you are truly interested in taking this discussion forward you will address these criticisms.

1 and 2 do not lead to 3.
You would need to add in a separate premise that the process of choice also does not follow the laws of physics.
Or show how the subject (not the process) of imagination not needing to obey the laws of physics logically leads to the process of choice also not needing to.
So far you have not done that.

And if pigs fly then all pigs have wings.

Yet your logic is flawed.

Not at all.
If I imagine an internal combustion engine, are you saying that this product of the imagination has no scientific explanation?
There appears to be no logical extension that would get from my claim to your conclusion.
You have merely stated it.

If you continue from flawed logic then you can arrive at any conclusion you want.

Except that as soon as you consider something unreal then it is not paranormal.
Paranormal is where a real thing has no scientific explanation.
If it is not real it does not exist.
Something that does not exist can neither be "normal" nor "paranormal".
And again you are heading down the route of triviality: "something that doesn't exist need not have a scientific explanation!"

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And if your own examples are anything to go by then perhaps you should worry less about the mapping and more about the content.

If you think there is contradiction in what I wrote then explain what you think says X and what you think says not-X.
Your style is merely to claim "No it's not!" with no further explanation, and this is just one more example.
So help me to not think that you just pull accusations or criticisms out of your backside to make yourself look intelligent, and actually try supporting them.

But to humour you:
[1] The product of the imagination is not real.
[2] to be paranormal something must be real but not have a scientific explanation.

If the product of the imagination is not real (from 1) then it fails on the first requirement to be paranormal (from 2).
The product of the imagination is thus not paranormal.

Or, as I said previously: the paranormal would be an experience (i.e. something real) that has no scientific explanation etc.
Something that is not real can thus not qualify as paranormal.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You whole complaint is due to your own inconsistent approach to the product of the imagination.
so I ask you...
If the product of the imagination is not real then what is it, in your opinion?
does it exist?
does it have value?
What is the reality of an idea, a notion, a choice, a decision or any other product of the imagination?
In your opinion?

Until you address this issue this discussion will be forced to be akin to a dog chasing it's tail.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

@All readers,

I have no dispute about "process" being a biological function and must conform with the laws associated. None at all.
There is however a vast distinction between "process" and the "product" of those processes.
which led to this addition to the list of test statements:

While Baldeee is inconsistent in describing the reality of the product of imagination, and declare all products of the imagination to be unreal the above issue of "process vs product" is unable to be resolved in his rational.
To me process is an obscure and yet to be scientifically explained phenomena any way.
I will however accept that it is quite logical and reasonable to suggest that a biological process is involved in the generation of products of the imagination.
To me also the product of the imagination is "real fiction" and is as real as the hundreds of fictional works in my personal library, the text in my books on calculus that I never read and the information that can be found on the net.
To suggest that ideas, choices and decisions etc are unreal seems to me to be utterly unsupported by the evidence surrounding us every day.

So I question Baldee's use of the term "unreal " in the context of this discussion.

An example:
This image below with comedian/actor Rob Williams:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What is the reality of this image?
If applying the scientific method what can we ascertain about this image?

All we can ascertain using the scientific method is that it exist only as light pixels on your screen generated by computer processing hardware.
The method can not assess the reality of the software that drives the hardware, the meaning of the image, nor why the colors appear the color they do as a color and not simply a frequency and wave length.
[A robotic eye can not see color but only measure frequency and wave length, A robotic ear can not hear the sound it can only measure the wavelength and frequency of the vibrations and so on..]

Which was, in part, why I posted this poem in the other thread:

So what is the color blue?
is it red to you?
Is it green?
Or is it yellow?
or is the color blue
unable to be seen by you?

Also the scientific method can not determine the reality of the ironic humor nor the meaning of the written words.

Is the message expressed by the image real or unreal?
Is the message a product of someones imagination and is the interpretation of that message the product of someones imagination?

Another :
Can the scientific method be used to determine the reality of a $100 usd bank note?
It can tell you what the note is made of, what light frequencies it reflects etc but it can not assess the value of $100 usd nor the imagery printed on the note etc.

 

How is it inconsistent?
Where have I changed position?
Back up your criticisms!

It is a simulation run on hardware that obeys the laws of physics.

No, only the simulation exists.

No.
But the simulation does.

Their reality is as a process that leads to actions.

This issue was addressed previously (around post 60 or so).
You just chose to ignore it.
As you do every criticism you don't have an answer for, instead focussing only on those you think you do have one for.

 

The bottom line is that unless one is somehow blind to (or is trying to ignore) what consciousness actually is, qualitatively speaking, one must concede that the sum of all knowledge thus far produced by the physical sciences just doesn't encapsulate the phenomenon. However such a concession is not incompatible with the substance monism that lies at the core of physicalism unless one is silly enough to define physicality as no greater in qualitative scope than what the physical sciences can currently contend with. And since the physical sciences are actually in the business of expanding our quantitative and qualitative knowledge of the physical world, and always have been, who would be silly enough to do that?

 

How is describing all products (subjects) of imagination to be unreal being inconsistent?
And how do you conclude that the issue can not be resolved in my rationale?
Again, mere statements are insufficient if you want to be taken seriously.

The resolution is quite simple in that mental images are experiences that simulate to a degree actual experiences, or mix thereof, but there is no reality beyond that.
There is no reality beyond the simulating process.
Try and stop imagining and the mental picture disappears.
It is maintained by, and is part of, the process.
There is no product with any independent reality.
The process can lead to experiences / imaginations that appear to defy the laws of physics, but the process does not, and since there is no independent reality of the "product", it is meaningless to say that the "product" defies the laws of physics.

???
You think a process is an obscure phenomena?

So magnanimous of you.

You are confusing the physicality of the book, of the computers, with what is in them, with the experience that the processing delivers to us.
You are considering the subject of imagination as a thing in its own right when it is merely a part of a process.
The process is real.
The subject has no reality in and of itself.

Why do you think that it can not?

And how do either of those differ to what we do, other than in complexity?
We only experience frequency and wavelength of light.
Everything else is mere internal reaction.

Which is as meaningless now as it was back then.

Nor, it seems, can you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The message is real as part of a process.
It has no independent reality.
It has an independent unreality... I.e. As something distinct from that process it is unreal.
As something unreal it need not obey the laws of physics.

Does "value" have any reality independent of the process that uses it?

 

But we can know enough to rationally conclude that it does not defy the laws of physics, as another contends.
And as for who would be silly enough... well, I know one or two who might be.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Sigh. Even if those generalizations were real in a concrete sense, they would lack capacity [at their grand scale] to be interested in humans or even be conscious / understand what we were. Much less make our decisions for us and be directing our behaviors (heteronomy). And causation is an aspect of the "be-ing" of any natural entity, not something that hilariously detracts from what it is and its abilities. That is, if some dolt truly believed that this or that "law" is regulating what s/he can or cannot do, that would still be another component of that person's body and autonomy, its local instantiation / functional role in that body. It would belong to an individual biological system, the latter conforming to what is entailed by its nature / beinghood as whatever species. Elephants are not expected to fly -- their "elephant-hood" is what differentiates them from parrots; likewise people aren't expected to move the Moon by sheer desire, they are not defined as gods to begin with. Organisms are "free" to be variable within the context of their specific ontological templates [that's all it ever can be if Bolo is to remain a dog and Martha Stewart is to remain a homo sapiens sapiens]. Even Bolo might refuse to fetch the stick on some days, dogs are not perfectly predictable machines falling under the iron-clad legislation of some universal principle, their responses can vary within their template.

The changes of a being over time can be assigned causes for its modifications. A leaf sailing through the air is entirely dependent upon an external agency (like the wind); it doesn't generate its own action and choice of where it travels. However, by simply removing the brain and other key internal organs / tissues it would become clear that human bodies produce their own motions / thoughts / conclusions (the latter are not generated by an external, ubiquitous, intangibly synoptic thing or concept called a "law of physics"). IOW, the cause of "this change" is the former state of the human body itself, and the microphysical forces / properties at work and residing in a body during any sequence of modifications. I.E., the latter are not holding us together and controlling us remotely from central headquarters, long distance -- they are part of what locally constitutes an organism and its states, they "are us".

 

see below...

so it is a simulation,
What is the reality of a simulation, in your opinion?

what is the reality of a simulation?

Then what is the reality of a simulation?

so imagining a pig that can fly is a process that leads to a pig that can fly? Really?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Oh I think if Baldeee looks at the record they have been addressed consistently and constantly to the point where Baldee's evasive and inconsistent unreal ideas have come full circle a number of times.


All Baldeee has stated is that he can't answer the question I posed and demonstrated his inconsistency saving me the trouble of having to dig it all up again.

==========

Also Baldeee probably can't see the problem with a statement like this:

"Ideas do not exist as they are unreal."

Can you Baldeee?

 

I am not totally sure I understand your points fully. I am possibly too embattled dealing with trees rather than forests ..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

However whilst I attempt to soak in what you have written I wonder if you could comment on this test statement #3:

which indicates that the ability to produce fiction including choices and decisions, uninhibited by the Laws of Physics is by virtue of the necessity of biological adherence to those laws.
The reason why this statement is important to this threads topic is that it provides a bridge that allows the determinist and the indeterminists to find a way to accommodate each others views.

A way to express the idea that Humans have evolved to express freedom of choice and decisions in the form of fiction uninhibited by the laws of physic.

 

A long list of words to say something very simple...IMO
"that science is a work in progress and that you would be silly to think other wise"

Do you feel that knowledge is real?
What is the reality of knowledge? In your opinion...

To help convey your position on this subject
Can you describe the reality of the following image?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

perhaps you also would like to comment on this test statement:

 

Strong and solid question posted by Baldeee.

using a $100 usd bank note as an example.

I am not suggesting that the value is independent of the process [ as you call it - I call it the "laws of physics" to remain consistent with the threads OP]
The value of a $100 note is pure fiction uninhibited by the laws of physics as the note itself has very little intrinsic material substance.

ie the cost of producing the bank note may be $1.20 yet it sells for a fictional value of $100
So one could conclude that the value of the a bank note is dependent on the physical presence of that note but not dependent on it's fictional imagery [$100 usd] printed upon it.
So in answer to Baldee's question:

yes can be the only answer.

Example of"value independent of process":
Ever seen a millionaire use usd notes to light a cigar?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I'm not sure I've met someone as consistently inconsistent as you, that you could make opposite claims in the same post and not be aware of it.
Your eagerness to make points that you think make you look intelligent makes you look anything but.

Please straighten your story, as it is not clear from the above which line you are arguing.

 

@ All readers.
If another member wishes me to I shall consider explaining further but to do it for Baldeee would be I feel a waste of time...
but just to clue the post Baldeee deliberately missed quoting:

Uninhibited does not mean the same thing as independent...nor dependent.

 

Perhaps Baldeee would like to respond to post #90 instead of deliberately avoiding the issue of his own ineptitude.

What is the reality of a simulation then?

 

The reality of a simulation is the process that utilises it.
What is being simulated has no independent existence outside of that simulation.

Where did I say that it leads to actions that necessarily mimic what is imagined?
The imagined subject, not being real, is not bound by the laws of physics.
Yet as soon as we turn the imagination / fiction into reality then it needs to adhere to those laws.
As such, while we can imagine that pigs can fly (the imagination not being real) they can not actually exist because actual existence is bound by the laws.

Please stop making false accusations.
You have still failed to address:
Posts 25, 34, 51, 54, 55, 59, 62, 64, 75, 81, 82.
Oh, you have responded to them, but you have not addressed the criticisms of your position raised in those posts.

You mean the answer I gave in post 62, 64 et al?
And again: what inconsistency?
Support your claims.

They do exist, just as part of the process of thinking.
Stop thinking and you have no ideas.
The process, as you have already agreed with, adheres to the Laws of physics.
As an entity in its own right the subject (i.e. the idea, the "product") need not adhere to it as, in its own right (i.e. independent of thought), it does not exist.
And so we return to your triviality: something that is not real need not obey the laws of physics.

 

Given the sheer quantity of your venom and bile, it is no wonder that I miss the occasional post now and then.
But instead of realising this, you jump on the notion that this is somehow an attempt to deliberately avoid something.
And you previously accused me of engaging in "forum blood sport"!

Just look at the animosity dripping from this post of yours.

And back on ignore you go.

 

and run away you go... cornered and wishing not to stand by your claims...

 

eh?

so one can conclude then that another imagined subject (product) such as a choice and/or a decision,

therefore until a choice or decision is enacted it is purely fictional and only has the reality that fiction has.

Thank you very much Baldeee, for again validating my points about freewill being a product of imagination... uninhibited by the laws of physics...