Free will ~ A product of imagination

[Sarkus]

@ 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.

QQ, regardless of what vendetta you seem to have against people who disagree with you, you can not claim he misquoted you when it is quite evident you DID type exactly what he quoted you as typing. They are exact quotes.
Do you deny you said: "I am not suggesting that the value is independent of the process"?
Do you also deny you said: "yes can be the only answer." in direct response to his question: Does "value" have any reality independent of the process that uses it?

That you also said "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." is irrelevant to the contradictory statements you did make, that he pulled you up on.

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

Oh, I would agree: freewill is indeed a product of imagination... the same as flying pigs, Harry Potter, and Quarg the Almighty who rides planets like they were giant Space Hoppers.

So thank you for clarifying your position, even if it does go contradictory to your incessant claims on other threads that freewill is genuine/real. I'm sure if Baldeee ever takes you off ignore he might thank you himself.

 

[Quantum Quack]

QQ, regardless of what vendetta you seem to have against people who disagree with you, you can not claim he misquoted you when it is quite evident you DID type exactly what he quoted you as typing. They are exact quotes.
Do you deny you said: "I am not suggesting that the value is independent of the process"?
Do you also deny you said: "yes can be the only answer." in direct response to his question: Does "value" have any reality independent of the process that uses it?

That you also said "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." is irrelevant to the contradictory statements you did make, that he pulled you up on.

Oh, I would agree: freewill is indeed a product of imagination... the same as flying pigs, Harry Potter, and Quarg the Almighty who rides planets like they were giant Space Hoppers.

So thank you for clarifying your position, even if it does go contradictory to your incessant claims on other threads that freewill is genuine/real. I'm sure if Baldeee ever takes you off ignore he might thank you himself.

It is of no consequence to me whether someone puts me on ignore or not. That is their individual choice to self censor or not.
His arguments have been going around in circles this entire thread.
This thread is not about me it is about the propositions as stated in the OP.
Baldeee and now you have chosen to make this thread about me..and that is not the topic.

What you have failed to grasp is the significance and ramifications of this statement:

The human ability to produce fiction including choices and decisions, uninhibited by the Laws of Physics, is biologically "hard wired" into our brains by those very same laws...

If you grasped the above, the claims of contradiction by Baldeee and now you are total nonsense. [ a terrible misinterpretation indicating just how out of your depth you both are ]
In this sense we are dependent on the hard wired biological reality to produce fiction uninhibited by that very same hard wired biology.

Which so far has not been addressed by Baldeee or yourself. [ perhaps you both are simply too busy trying to attack me personally rather than getting on with the job at hand?]
When Baldeee finally is made to stand by his attempt to refute he spits the dummy and runs away.

so maybe you would care to have a go at it instead...

so I ask you...

If the product of the imagination is not real then what is it, in your opinion?
If the value of $100 printed on a bank note is not real then what is it?
Or are you going to launch in to an "ad hominem" attack as your reputation suggests that is all you are capable of when you can not address the issue at hand?


Note: I am looking for a "proposition killer" and as yet I have not found one...which is why I posted this thread to begin with. With sciforum member's help we may find out if there are any weaknesses or failings

 

[Quantum Quack]

Oh, I would agree: freewill is indeed a product of imagination... the same as flying pigs, Harry Potter, and Quarg the Almighty who rides planets like they were giant Space Hoppers.

well thank you very much...

you do know the difference between an illusion and fiction don't you...?
If choices and decisions are fiction and are uninhibited by the laws of physics is as you have agreed, then free will is a reality of fiction we use every day and not in the slightest bit an illusion.

Which is exactly what the OP has proposed..

Sarkus posts:
Oh, I would agree: freewill is indeed a product of imagination...

and so is E=mc^2
and all the thousands of years of science that went into it's imagining.

so ...uhm.... what's the problem? we agree!


Can you imagine a proposition killer that makes sense?....if so I am sure we would all like to read it...

 

[Rav]

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"

Actually I'm pretty sure I said more than that. Specifically, that the definition of physical has historically expanded to encapsulate more and more phenomena. And one day it may very well expand to include the phenomenon of consciousness as well. Some people might think this has already happened, but it really hasn't. What we've seen instead is a lot of people trying to quantify consciousness in terms of the current state of our understanding, which simply doesn't work. In my opinion, if the dimension of consciousness is indeed ultimately a property of a bunch of the same "stuff" that everything else is made of, then explaining it will entail the discovery of new fundamental characteristics. And that certainly wouldn't be unprecedented.

Most objections to this seem to stem from the idea that matter and consciousness are so fundamentally irreconcilably different that a dualistic approach is absolutely necessary. But I think this betrays a failure to recognize the fact that at the most fundamental level, matter isn't actually physical in the classical sense anyway. Our best understanding says that everything we see is manifested by fields of energy, some of which permeate, penetrate and interact with everything in a very ethereal sort of way. Believe it or not, that's what the physical world actually is, and it's not even controversial to say that. So at the fundamental level at least, where's this supposed necessary dualism? What is inherently wrong with the notion that physicality, so understood, can manifest consciousness, particularly when the assumption is not that consciousness itself is an inherent property of all things but merely that the fundamental building blocks that are necessary for its emergence are? I say that matter must have such properties, or else you simply can't get there from here.

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

Conscious beings who can hold ideas and information about the world in their minds certainly exist. And when those ideas are indeed being held in the mind then yes, they exist. Obviously.

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

How about constructing a multiple choice question instead? I come here to casually converse, not to relive the experience of annoying exam questions.

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

The human ability to produce fiction including choices and decisions, uninhibited by the Laws of Physics, is biologically "hard wired" into our brains by those very same laws...

And again. But I feel inclined to comment here nonetheless.

I've come to dislike the phrase "laws of physics". It implies that the behaviour of the natural world is governed by a bunch of rules we've abstracted from our imperfect attempts at modeling it. But it isn't. The natural world simply behaves according its own nature. In other words, it is possible for nature to behave in opposition to the "laws of physics", but not in opposition to that nature. So unless you are prepared to improve your question, I'm not inclined to tackle the task of answering it.

 

[Quantum Quack]

@ Rav

Firstly thank you for your well considered response.

And I do apologize for posting in the manner I have.

Actually I'm pretty sure I said more than that. Specifically, that the definition of physical has historically expanded to encapsulate more and more phenomena. And one day it may very well expand to include the phenomenon of consciousness as well. Some people might think this has already happened, but it really hasn't. What we've seen instead is a lot of people trying to quantify consciousness in terms of the current state of our understanding, which simply doesn't work. In my opinion, if the dimension of consciousness is indeed ultimately a property of a bunch of the same "stuff" that everything else is made of, then explaining it will entail the discovery of new fundamental properties of matter. And that certainly wouldn't be unprecedented.

I totally agree with what you have written...
To understand the nature of consciousness may indeed require a major scientific paradigm shift by those who practice from the arm chair.

Most objections to this seem to stem from the idea that matter and consciousness are so fundamentally irreconcilably different that a dualistic approach is absolutely necessary. But I think this betrays a failure to recognize the fact that at the most fundamental level, matter isn't actually "physical" in the classical sense anyway. Our best understanding says that everything we see is manifested by fields of energy, some of which permeate, penetrate and interact with everything in a very ethereal sort of way. Believe it or not, that's what the physical world actually is, and it's not even controversial to say that. So at the fundamental level at least, where's this supposed necessary dualism? What is inherently wrong with the notion that physicality, so understood, can manifest consciousness, particularly when the assumption is not that consciousness itself is an inherent property of all things but merely that the fundamental building blocks that are necessary for its emergence are? I say that matter must have such properties, or else you simply can't get there from here.

What you have written indicates a rather profound depth of understanding that most would have difficulty accepting with out applying the effort needed to meet challenge.

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

Conscious beings who can hold ideas and information about the world in their minds certainly exist. And when those ideas are indeed being held in the mind then yes, they exist. Obviously.

yes it is rather obvious and unfortunately sometimes it is necessary to state such.

How about constructing a multiple choice question instead? I come here to casually converse, not to relive the experience of annoying exam questions.

I do apologize.. unintended to bore you with over kill so to speak.

I've come to dislike the phrase "laws of physics". It implies that the behaviour of the natural world is governed by a bunch of rules we've abstracted from our imperfect attempts at modeling it. But it isn't. The natural world simply behaves according its own nature. In other words, it is possible for nature to behave in opposition to the "laws of physics", but not in opposition to that nature. So unless you are prepared to improve your question, I'm not inclined to tackle the task of answering it.

I agree with what you have offered.
Regarding the complaint, fair enough and a reasonable request... thank you..

 

[Sarkus]

His arguments have been going around in circles this entire thread.

I find them most logical.

This thread is not about me it is about the propositions as stated in the OP.
Baldeee and now you have chosen to make this thread about me..and that is not the topic.

You have made it about you, QQ. I certainly haven't, and nor has Baldeee from what I can see, but do feel free to provide evidence where he has. Or where I have.

What you have failed to grasp is the significance and ramifications of this statement:

Oh, I grasp what it is trying to say, QQ. You simply haven't addressed the criticisms of it yet. You have dismissed them without addressing them.

If you grasped the above, the quotes by Baldeee are nonsense. [ a terrible misinterpretation indicating just how out of his depth he is ]

Where has he misinterpreted it? You constantly make such claims without providing anything to support your case.

In this sense we are dependent on the hard wired biological reality to produce fiction uninhibited by that very same hard wired biology.

And nothing within the statement speaks to the reality or otherwise of the subject of the imagination.

Which so far has not been addressed by Baldeee or yourself. [ perhaps you both are simply too busy trying to attack me personally rather than getting on with the job at hand?]
When Baldeee finally is made to stand by his attempt to refute he spits the dummy and runs away.

Where have I attacked you rather than your argument, QQ? As Baldee has said, it is you who are generating the insults here, and then you have the gall to criticise people when they have had enough of you and your ludicrous "arguments".

If the product of the imagination is not real then what is it, in your opinion?

It is as real as the clouds within a Met Office computer that is trying to predict the weather.

If the value of $100 printed on a bank note is not real then what is it?

The value of a bank note is only real as part of a process by which the relevant parties agree to give it value. There is nothing inherently of value outside of that process.

Or are you going to launch in to an "ad hominem" attack as your reputation suggests that is all you are capable of when you can not address the issue at hand?

Excuse me??
Where have I engaged in such? Just post one example of where I have ever done that - or retract your accusation!
Oh, I have insulted, I have no doubt of that. But never in lieu of addressing the point!
So post one example. And for that matter provide evidence that doing such is what my "reputation suggests".

Note: I am looking for a "proposition killer" and as yet I have not found one...which is why I posted this thread to begin with. With sciforum member's help we may find out if there are any weaknesses or failings

To the proposition that something unreal need not adhere to the laws of physics? Are you expecting people to disagree?
As to your subsequent claim that this somehow shows that freewill is a reality, all you have done is argue that freewill is unreal, and that the subject of freewill (not the process of making the choice, but the choice itself) is similarly free from the laws of physics.
You have not addressed the decision-making process itself, but merely the "product" of it... and for the "product" you have not addressed its reality outside of the process in question.
Beyond that, your entire line of argument is nonsense from the outset. It is based on illogic, as has been pointed out to you, but you chose to ignore it, or simply claim the person is wrong without supporting that claim.

 

[Quantum Quack]

@ Rav,
As yet you have not approached the propositions mentioned in the OP..
Can I ask why? [The use of the terms "the laws of physics" is due to the popular usage and subsequent debates that follow]

[if you could "put aside" to some extent the adversarial nature of it's approach.... ]

Can you suggest a better way of presenting them so that a discussion or debate can be most rigorous and productive. I would like to eventually take it to a more qualified and erudite setting.

[1]The product of the imagination is NOT determined by the laws of physics.

[2]The product of the imagination does not need to defy the laws of physics but renders them irrelevant as per choice.

[3]The human ability to produce fiction including choices and decisions, uninhibited by the Laws of Physics, is biologically "hard wired" into our brains by those very same laws...

[4]The criteria that for freewill to be more that an illusion of appearance it must defy the laws of physics has *therefore* been refuted.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I find them most logical. >>so what does that say about you?
You have made it about you, QQ. I certainly haven't, and nor has Baldeee from what I can see, but do feel free to provide evidence where he has. Or where I have.>>the thread is full of it
Oh, I grasp what it is trying to say, QQ. You simply haven't addressed the criticisms of it yet. You have dismissed them without addressing them. >>totally false
Where has he misinterpreted it? You constantly make such claims without providing anything to support your case.>>please read the post properly
And nothing within the statement speaks to the reality or otherwise of the subject of the imagination. >>the subject is fictional, a fiction that we use every day all the time
Where have I attacked you rather than your argument, QQ? As Baldee has said, it is you who are generating the insults here, and then you have the gall to criticise people when they have had enough of you and your ludicrous "arguments".>>ludicrous...that smells like an unsupported attack to me
It is as real as the clouds within a Met Office computer that is trying to predict the weather. >>and as real as E=mc^2 too,, by golly
The value of a bank note is only real as part of a process by which the relevant parties agree to give it value. There is nothing inherently of value outside of that process. >>not so. the value is always a fiction until it is spent tendered and even then it is disputable.
Excuse me?? >>nope!
Where have I engaged in such? Just post one example of where I have ever done that - or retract your accusation! >>see you confession below
Oh, I have insulted, I have no doubt of that. But never in lieu of addressing the point! >>see you confessed like I said
So post one example. And for that matter provide evidence that doing such is what my "reputation suggests". >>too many posts in too many threads to bother
To the proposition that something unreal need not adhere to the laws of physics? Are you expecting people to disagree? >> no but you have said you do... so go figure (fiction is not the same as Baldeee's "unreal")
As to your subsequent claim that this somehow shows that freewill is a reality, all you have done is argue that freewill is unreal, <<did not... you are referring to Baldees claim not mine - I use Fiction not unreal and that the subject of freewill (not the process of making the choice, but the choice itself) is similarly free from the laws of physics.
You have not addressed the decision-making process itself, but merely the "product" of it... and for the "product" you have not addressed its reality outside of the process in question.>> I could but it is the choice it self and the decision it self that is in contention here.
Beyond that, your entire line of argument is nonsense from the outset. It is based on illogic, as has been pointed out to you, but you chose to ignore it, or simply claim the person is wrong without supporting that claim.>>see my first comment in red at the top

so uhm... what are you trying to say about the topic at hand...?
Take a deep breath and post one question at a time... follow a logic trail of your own and I will respond accordingly...
As yet you have not understood properly what I am proposing...and I am also learning how to convey them...

 

[Baldeee]

I find them most logical.

Thank you.

Oh, I grasp what it is trying to say, QQ. You simply haven't addressed the criticisms of it yet. You have dismissed them without addressing them.
Where has he misinterpreted it? You constantly make such claims without providing anything to support your case.
And nothing within the statement speaks to the reality or otherwise of the subject of the imagination.

It will be interesting to see if he does, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Where have I attacked you rather than your argument, QQ? As Baldee has said, it is you who are generating the insults here, and then you have the gall to criticise people when they have had enough of you and your ludicrous "arguments".

Trolls do as trolls do, Sarkus.
There was a good film I saw recently: "Troll Hunter".
Now I have an image to go with the name.
And it is sad when people think that ignoring others is due to the superiority of their "argument".
Normally if someone is having stones thrown at them, they can either throw back, or extricate themselves.

It is as real as the clouds within a Met Office computer that is trying to predict the weather.
The value of a bank note is only real as part of a process by which the relevant parties agree to give it value. There is nothing inherently of value outside of that process.

Agreed!
Their existence is solely as part of a process.
Do they exist independently of that process, as Quantum Quack claimed?
No, I don't think they do.
They are a sort of qualia, I'd suggest, but I do not hold to the existence of qualia, but rather to the process that gives rise to them.

Excuse me??
Where have I engaged in such? Just post one example of where I have ever done that - or retract your accusation!
Oh, I have insulted, I have no doubt of that. But never in lieu of addressing the point!
So post one example. And for that matter provide evidence that doing such is what my "reputation suggests".

Has he got you confused with someone else, perhaps?
He previously accused me of engaging in "forum blood sports".
So you'll have to let me know if he does support any of these accusations.

To the proposition that something unreal need not adhere to the laws of physics? Are you expecting people to disagree?
As to your subsequent claim that this somehow shows that freewill is a reality, all you have done is argue that freewill is unreal, and that the subject of freewill (not the process of making the choice, but the choice itself) is similarly free from the laws of physics.
You have not addressed the decision-making process itself, but merely the "product" of it... and for the "product" you have not addressed its reality outside of the process in question.
Beyond that, your entire line of argument is nonsense from the outset. It is based on illogic, as has been pointed out to you, but you chose to ignore it, or simply claim the person is wrong without supporting that claim.

Experience shows that he won't address them.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Thank you.
It will be interesting to see if he does, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Trolls do as trolls do, Sarkus.
There was a good film I saw recently: "Troll Hunter".
Now I have an image to go with the name.
And it is sad when people think that ignoring others is due to the superiority of their "argument".
Normally if someone is having stones thrown at them, they can either throw back, or extricate themselves.
Agreed!
Their existence is solely as part of a process.
Do they exist independently of that process, as Quantum Quack claimed?
No, I don't think they do.
They are a sort of qualia, I'd suggest, but I do not hold to the existence of qualia, but rather to the process that gives rise to them.
Has he got you confused with someone else, perhaps?
He previously accused me of engaging in "forum blood sports".
So you'll have to let me know if he does support any of these accusations.
Experience shows that he won't address them.

post reported
Off topic, worthless content and participating in forum blood sport.

 

[Sarkus]

Due to the way you chose to write that last post, this may look messy, but my initial sentences are in bold, yours follow...

I find them most logical. >>so what does that say about you?

It says more of you that you are not able to follow it.

You have made it about you, QQ. I certainly haven't, and nor has Baldeee from what I can see, but do feel free to provide evidence where he has. Or where I have.>>the thread is full of it

Oh, it's "full of it", for sure. Not in the meaning you might think though. But if you think the thread is full of examples of where Baldeee (although I now see you edited your post to include me. How nice.) has made it about you, just provide an example.

Oh, I grasp what it is trying to say, QQ. You simply haven't addressed the criticisms of it yet. You have dismissed them without addressing them. >>totally false

Another example of you saying "you're wrong" with nothing to support it. So where is your addressing of post 40, other than your "this makes little sense to me"?

Where has he misinterpreted it? You constantly make such claims without providing anything to support your case.>>please read the post properly

I have. Where has he misinterpreted it?

And nothing within the statement speaks to the reality or otherwise of the subject of the imagination. >>the subject is fictional, a fiction that we use every day all the time

Use as part of a process, yes. Where is the reality outside of that process, the process you have agreed adheres to the laws of physics?

Where have I attacked you rather than your argument, QQ? As Baldee has said, it is you who are generating the insults here, and then you have the gall to criticise people when they have had enough of you and your ludicrous "arguments".>>ludicrous...that smells like an unsupported attack to me

I think post 64 is evidence that your posts are found ludicrous. But hey, why not ignore the rest of the line you're responding to. Where have I attacked you rather than your argument? You are the one generating insults (post 52, post 53 - the whole of which is just an attempt at character assassination of Baldeee, as is post 57 which questions his honour, post 73 in which you accused him of "forum blood sport" etc), and then in post 102 you have the gall to criticise him for putting you on ignore.

It is as real as the clouds within a Met Office computer that is trying to predict the weather. >>and as real as E=mc^2 too,, by golly

E=mc^2 is not real. It is our estimate at a universal law. Laws have no reality in and of themselves, only as part of a process. As explained.

The value of a bank note is only real as part of a process by which the relevant parties agree to give it value. There is nothing inherently of value outside of that process. >>not so. the value is always a fiction until it is spent tendered and even then it is disputable.

And how is "spent tendered" etc not a process in which value is a part? If you are going to say "not so" then at least put up an example that does not support my position.

Excuse me?? >>nope!
Where have I engaged in such? Just post one example of where I have ever done that - or retract your accusation! >>see you confession below
Oh, I have insulted, I have no doubt of that. But never in lieu of addressing the point! >>see you confessed like I said

You accused me of launching "in to an 'ad hominem' attack as your reputation suggests that is all you are capable of when you can not address the issue at hand". Insulting you while also addressing the issue at hand is not such an ad hominem as you accuse me of.
So again: Where have I engaged in such that you have accused me of? Just post one example of where I have ever done that - or retract your accusation!

So post one example. And for that matter provide evidence that doing such is what my "reputation suggests". >>too many posts in too many threads to bother

If there are too many posts in too many threads, just post one. It should be relatively easy.

To the proposition that something unreal need not adhere to the laws of physics? Are you expecting people to disagree? >> no but you have said you do... so go figure (fiction is not the same as Baldeee's "unreal")

Where have I said so? Where have I said that something unreal needs to adhere to the laws of phyiscs? Again - support your claim!
As for claiming "fiction is not the same as Baldeee's 'unreal'" - refer to post 40 where it is clear he considers them to be the same. You have not as yet disputed that.

As to your subsequent claim that this somehow shows that freewill is a reality, all you have done is argue that freewill is unreal, <<did not... you are referring to Baldees claim not mine - I use Fiction not unreal and that the subject of freewill (not the process of making the choice, but the choice itself) is similarly free from the laws of physics.

So we are to ignore your post 63 and 66 (identical posts) and your subsequent jpg-making exploits where you said that you and he agree when he said: "The process of imagination follows the laws of physics.
The subject need not do so - until one attempts to make it real."? Another show of lack of consistency on your part, QQ.

You have not addressed the decision-making process itself, but merely the "product" of it... and for the "product" you have not addressed its reality outside of the process in question.>> I could but it is the choice it self and the decision it self that is in contention here.

No it is not. You are attempting to show that the product of imagination is free from the laws of physics... and from your "logic" (and I use the term loosely) you attempt to use it to prove that freewill is thus free from the laws of physics. So it is very much the issue here.

Beyond that, your entire line of argument is nonsense from the outset. It is based on illogic, as has been pointed out to you, but you chose to ignore it, or simply claim the person is wrong without supporting that claim.>>see my first comment in red at the top

Anything else to add, beyond your continuing lack of support for your claims and for the accusations you have thrown at both me and Baldeee?

 

[Sarkus]

post reported
Off topic, worthless content and participating in forum blood sport.

:shrug:
Are you going to report all your own posts for worthless content, insults and unsupported claims?

 

[Sarkus]

Their existence is solely as part of a process.
Do they exist independently of that process, as Quantum Quack claimed?
No, I don't think they do.
They are a sort of qualia, I'd suggest, but I do not hold to the existence of qualia, but rather to the process that gives rise to them.

Can you explain further? You think the "product" of imagination is similar, say, to pain, and that it doesn't have an independent existence? That it's only existence is as part of the process of, say, being alive?
Afterall, I guess a dead body does not feel pain, and a dead body is certainly not exhibiting the process of "living". So what would pain be if not merely an aspect of that process? Can we bottle "pain"? Can we pluck a thought from someone's head without capturing that process in action? If the process stops, does the thing, be it an imagined thought, a fiction, pain, do any them then exist?

If not, and I do not necessarily disagree with this (if this is what you meant), then to speak of the "product" of the process is meaningless, as there is just the process. Hence the "product" is not real.
Thus the claim that freewill is such a "product" means that it can be nothing but part of the process that gives rise to it, and as such must abide by the "laws of physics" (as previously agreed, even by QQ!).

The issue then remains how the thought/imagination can be about something that appears to defy the laws of physics. E.g. I can imagine a rabbit that can leap 20km in the air. How can this occur within a process that abides by those laws? What is the nature of the "existence" of that rabbit? Is it because I create, with the same sense of "existence" a universe in which those laws do not apply? Then how can I create such a universe which defies the laws of physics of our own universe?

But is that even relevant to the question of freewill, when freewill is not about what you decide, but about how you decide. So even if a process can give rise to things that, within their bubble of "existence" as a thought (per above), can seem to defy the laws of physics, it is irrelevant to the question of freewill if the process that brought about that thought adheres to the laws of physics/universe etc.

 

[C C]

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.

But that seems to automatically fall out of or already be subsumed under the observed furniture / eventual products of a deterministic universe (if the latter was taken to literally be the case). IOW, that such is unavoidably fated to produce its own foil: These appearances and arguments of free will [fiction] arising, support for indeterminism, etc. Even determinists can't deny that their own client (an unfolding process which from the outset was devoid of any optional pasts / presents / futures) is utterly responsible for its own situation of having to be defended, that it accordingly may be its own worst enemy.

 

[Baldeee]

Can you explain further? You think the "product" of imagination is similar, say, to pain, and that it doesn't have an independent existence? That it's only existence is as part of the process of, say, being alive?

Yes (in answer to the latter questions, thus answering the first).
Some would argue that qualia exist in and of themselves.
That things have essences.
But I see it as these "essences" are merely a perception/interpretation of a process in action.
You stop the process, the essence is not there.
Is the essence part of the process, or of the interpretation?
Or neither?
Marvin Minsky is a good one to read on this general subject.

The issue then remains how the thought/imagination can be about something that appears to defy the laws of physics. E.g. I can imagine a rabbit that can leap 20km in the air. How can this occur within a process that abides by those laws? What is the nature of the "existence" of that rabbit? Is it because I create, with the same sense of "existence" a universe in which those laws do not apply? Then how can I create such a universe which defies the laws of physics of our own universe?

But that "existence" is not real in and of itself, of course.
It is real in the sense that it is part of a process, but not in and of itself.
This is where the notion of what is "real" is a tad woolly, much like the issue of whether an illusion exists.
An illusion exists, but not as we perceive it.
The existence of what we perceive only exists as part of the process of perception.
In the same way, our thoughts "exist" but only as part of the process of thinking.

But is that even relevant to the question of freewill, when freewill is not about what you decide, but about how you decide. So even if a process can give rise to things that, within their bubble of "existence" as a thought (per above), can seem to defy the laws of physics, it is irrelevant to the question of freewill if the process that brought about that thought adheres to the laws of physics/universe etc.

Ah, yes.
I was getting embroiled with the claim put forth that the "product" can defy the laws of physics, and this thus "proving" that freewill can defy them (being a "product").
But indeed the nature of freewill is not in the "product", the options seemingly available, but in the process of "choice".
And this simply has not been addressed within this thread.
And the OP seems doomed from the outset in that it considers freewill a "product" rather than the process.

 

[Quantum Quack]

But that seems to automatically fall out of or already be subsumed under the observed furniture / eventual products of a deterministic universe (if the latter was taken to literally be the case). IOW, that such is unavoidably fated to produce its own foil: These appearances and arguments of free will [fiction] arising, support for indeterminism, etc. Even determinists can't deny that their own client (an unfolding process which from the outset was devoid of any optional pasts / presents / futures) is utterly responsible for its own situation of having to be defended, that it accordingly may be its own worst enemy.

hmmm... agreed...

 

[Quantum Quack]

Edit: this section deleted as unnecessarily confusing to the issue.

To use a criteria that is a fictional product of the imagination, such as "The Laws of Physics" to deny the reality of Freewill, which is being claimed to be another fictional product of imagination is absurd.
Therefore Freewill could be considered as fictionally real as "The laws of physics"

It would be best I suppose to clarify whether "The laws of physics" are products of imagination before taking this discussion much further.

 

[Sarkus]

Marvin Minsky is a good one to read on this general subject.

Will look him up. Thanks.

But that "existence" is not real in and of itself, of course.
It is real in the sense that it is part of a process, but not in and of itself.
This is where the notion of what is "real" is a tad woolly, much like the issue of whether an illusion exists.
An illusion exists, but not as we perceive it.
The existence of what we perceive only exists as part of the process of perception.
In the same way, our thoughts "exist" but only as part of the process of thinking.

But that is true of anything without material existence?
Could the "Laws of Physics" even be said to exist?

Ah, yes.
I was getting embroiled with the claim put forth that the "product" can defy the laws of physics, and this thus "proving" that freewill can defy them (being a "product").
But indeed the nature of freewill is not in the "product", the options seemingly available, but in the process of "choice".
And this simply has not been addressed within this thread.
And the OP seems doomed from the outset in that it considers freewill a "product" rather than the process.

But I think we at least both agree that it is nothing to do with the "product", that it is the process.

 

[Baldeee]

But that is true of anything without material existence?
Could the "Laws of Physics" even be said to exist?

Would it be true of anything?
Well, either the thing is real / exists in and of itself, or it exists as part of a process.
The process of "life" in humans gives rise to such things as emotions, feelings, observations, thoughts, value, worth etc.
None of these things exist outside of this process.
But something like a rock has independent existence.
It remains a rock whether it is part of a process or not.
The label "rock" assists with its identification when part of a process involving us, but it is not needed for the rock to be a rock.
At least that's how I see it.

With regard the laws of physics...
One needs to be clear as to whether one is talking about the laws as we have identified them, or the objective laws that the universe adheres to.
The former, being our best guess (albeit after years, decades, centuries of observation etc), are still only our interpretation of the laws.
And in that regard I would say that they have no existence outside of the relevant process (of human life).
The objective laws (that we have hopefully modelled accurately) are different, though, in that they exist in the objective way that the universe acts.
These objective laws do not change, irrespective of what we might claim them to be.
So I would say that these do have an independent existence, at least independent from the process of "life", of imagination, of thought, although (under this argument) we are certainly a manifestation of those laws.

But I think we at least both agree that it is nothing to do with the "product", that it is the process.

Indeed.

 

[Quantum Quack]

So is fiction real or unreal?
Is fiction "a part" of the process suggested by, Baldeee?
Define fiction and how that process appears to allow the imagination "creative license" with out inhibition? [as evidenced by the incredible diversity of human creative output in all fields of endevour]

I have never stated that fiction is unreal.
I have always stated that there is ample evidence to support the reality of fiction.




From the OP

[1]The product of the imagination is NOT determined by the laws of physics.

This is to say that the product or out put of the imagination is not determined by the laws of physics nor causal chains, and this claim is supported by works of fiction, historically, that demonstrate quite clearly the independence of those laws.
Examples:
Alice's adventures to wonderland
Men in black etc.
and all other creative fiction, whether that be in the arts, culture, sciences and in every day human behavior.
The choices we make using our imagination are total fiction, a mere fantasy of choice and decisions yet to be enacted.
The laws of physics only become deterministic upon enacting decisions or choices, and not before and in most cases "oppresses" that inner freedom in the process.
The above does not suggest that the freewill is not in some instances seriously oppressed by beliefs in those laws, where upon those beliefs may indeed strongly influence the product of the imagination. [psychology 101]

and

[2] The product of the imagination does not need to defy the laws of physics but renders them irrelevant as per choice.


The imagination does not need to defy any laws but the imaginer is quite capable of making use of them as per whim. Or the imaginer can render them as irrelevant to his creative pursuits.
What this means is that when making a decision or choice the imaginer can either make use of those laws or not and can easily in most cases demonstrate freedom to make those laws irrelevant to his creations.
Example: the idea or concept of "Superman" or "the supposed hoax "Philadelphia experiment." etc.

In other words with, all due respect, you Baldeee and Sarkus appear to be arguing the wrong argument.