No. I have said just the opposite several times, but once again: The self ("You") are a subroutine in a simulation program /code which executes in parietal brain tissue. This self is causal. It causes your voluntary movements and your choices. It is the "agent" with desires and wishes in the following definition of choice: DEFINITION: A Choice is a selection made by an agent in the belief that that selection will help achieve its desires. Note that the self alone is the cause of its choices. Yes you cause your choices. These choices can be externally influenced as I have noted before (a gun held to body's head, etc) but most choices are the self's own uninfluenced selections (E.g. orange vs. tomato juice, etc.) You just keep making the same ASSERTION that choice and free will are impossible unless their prior causal chains can be broken.* I have several times asked you to defend / prove this assertion, but you never attempt to do so - you only keep repeating the same assertion - at least 10 times now. You don't comment on my definition of choice or show any reason one should believe your assertion, which claims the choice of my definition cannot exist. You don't offer any alternative definition of a choice but that is understandable as you ASSERT there is no such thing as a choice - every selection is just the end result of an unbroken chain of prior events in your POV. ----------------- *You have also not yet explained how you can use logic to produce favorable outcomes yet believe that everything, every behavior, is the result of an unbroken chain of causes back to the big bang origin of the universe. Is your behavior entirely determined by an unbroken chain of prior events, some of which happened before you were born, or do you, yourself, make choices? You seem to hold two internally self contradictory beliefs, which would imply at least one is wrong.
Origionaly posted by cluelusshusbund Is it you'r POV that the "self" is not subject to cause an effect.??? So its you'r clame that the "self" can make uninfluenced selections... but wit out som sort of influence... what does the "self" base its selections on.??? Mine is the logical position which you have yet to refute... by showin how the causal chane is broken in such a way that allows for free will to exist.!!! Do you thank its a soul... or som other sort of magic that brakes the causal chane in such a way that allows for free will to esist.??? "Choise" is jus a word to denote selection... i dont see any evidence that choice (free-choice) exists.!!! My pov is... that the illusion of free will has evolved along wit humans... i lived the firs 20 years of my life under the illusion that free will is real... ive understood for about 40 years that free will is an illusion... but i still live my life as if free will is real even tho intelectually i understan that free will is an illusion.!!!
No, I do NOT claim the self is not influenced. The self is a set of code / a computational program / running in parietal brain tissue. It has ability to control the voluntary mussels (tongue etc. for speech included of course). It also has self awareness, and wishes and desires (and all the feelings that are called "qualias"). The self also has access to all of your memories, which include the results/ consequences/ of prior choices it has made. These are the things that influence its current decisions/ choices. It is also influenced by the RTS representation of the external world (not the external world directly) so a gun held to the head will influence its choices. I have clearly stated all this several times. Even my definition of "choice" includes two of these influence (the self's wishes and beliefs). I have no idea how you can so erroneous think I claim the self has no influences, except that you repeated assert, without any proof, that choice does not exist if there is an unbroken chain of prior causal events. The self does not choose at random, but it choice is strongly influenced by its belief that the choice will aid it to achieve its desires. Instead of making suggestions as to what I must believe, based on your false idea / assertion that choice is impossible without some break in a causal chain, why not: (1) Prove or at least support your often repeated assertion. (2) Explain how you can “use logic" to “put the odds of a desirable out-com in my favor" (quoting your post 139 of another thread) yet assert that all acts are the result of an unbroken chain of prior causes. Do you have some “spirit” that comes in and delivers this logical choice, instead of what the unbroken chain would select? (3) Define choice or tell what is wrong with my definition, which was: Choice is a selection made by an agent with the belief that that selection will help the agent obtain its desires. BTW, I cannot define “free will” so I seldom speak of it. My essay on the Real Time Simulation, RTS*, is mainly about how human perceptions works: I refute the commonly accepted POV that perception “emerge” following a long chain of neural computational transforms of the signals coming from your sensory transducers and offer an alternative POV, which is much more consistent with known facts of both psychology and neurophysiology. My comments at the end of that essay about free will are only to note that since one is only a computational process, not a material body, within this RTS, “you” are not constrained to follow the laws of nature. Thus the standard conflict between the laws of nature controlling the firing of every nerve in your body with the concept of free will is removed. As I state there, free will need not be in conflict with the laws of nature if “you” are only a subroutine in a very complex, self evolving, program running in parietal tissue. I have several times stated, there and elsewhere that my essay is NOT proof that free will exists. – The RTS essay only shows that free will could exist and not be in conflict with the laws of nature. I can, and have, defined “choice” and, even though the self is a set of complex code, which is constantly evolving by learning, this self can (and does) make choices (as they are defined here). *Read RTS essay at: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=905778&postcount=66 To quickly understand the main flaws of the accepted theory of perception read: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2502342&postcount=12 This post 12 is less than one page, but the RTS essay is longer as I tried to explain a new complex alternative view about perception and give many supporting facts which it easily explains but the accepted theory cannot. To mention just one of dozens of supporting facts: Your perception of most of the visual space in front of you is equally clear over a wide angle, but if perception “emerged” from retinal inputs it would be clear only over about one degree as only the fovea has the high density of rods needed for clear image perception. What you perceive is being created in the RTS model of the external world.
I know that if I give my dog a choice between dry food and fresh chicken, it will go for the chicken. If we are out walking there are occasions when it will refuse point blank to go in the direction I choose. When it wants to play it goes and brings me its toys. If that is Free Will then the dog does indeed have it and by default so must all animals. This is not to dismiss Determinism, there could be no effect without a cause. However, during the course of your time living 'the effect', and we are always in a state or multiple states of 'Effect/s', you do have choices, preferences and even epiphanies where you can and do act with Free Will and you can even refute or go against 'the effect', more commonly known as changing your mind or forgiveness or giving them a second chance. This is Free Will. Look; Determinism is like a network of roads and you are like a car on one of those roads. That particular road leads to XYZ but you know, you can change your mind and you can always go to W if you so wish, you just make a detour.
Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund ... So its you'r clame that the "self" can make uninfluenced selections... but wit out som sort of influence... what does the "self" base its selections on.??? That wasnt my queston... earlier you said... "most choices are the self's own uninfluenced selections (E.g. orange vs. tomato juice, etc.)” Sinse mos of the selections the "self" makes are uninfluenced selectons (which seems to be an atempt on you'r part to make an argument for free choise sinse those selections woud not be a part of the causal chane)... begs the queston... sinse mos of the "selfs" selectons are not influenced... those selections mus be random... an how does random selections equate to free-choise.???
I have, several times already, told you. Here is the most recent time: Concisely the self is influenced by its: (1) Wishes (2) Desires (3) Memories, especially of results from prior choices. (4) Moods & Feeling ("qualias") (5) Perception of the external world (via the RTS, not directly) Gun to head example, etc. How many times must I ask you to respond to my three questions? Now concisely listed in that last post, which were: (1) Prove or at least support your often repeated assertion (no choice unless causal chain is broken). (2) Explain how you can “use logic" to “put the odds of a desirable out-com in my favor" (quoting your post 139 of another thread) yet assert that all acts are the result of an unbroken chain of prior causes. Do you have some “spirit” that comes in and delivers this logical choice, instead of what the unbroken chain would select? (3) Define choice or tell what is wrong with my definition, which was: Choice is a selection made by an agent with the belief that that selection will help the agent obtain its desires. With following partial quote of me in brown color you are intentionally distorting by quoting only last part of my sentence making a contrast. * Another of your false conclusions about what I am saying. Here is my full sentence making a contrast between choice that are influence by factor 5 above and those that are not influenced by it: Clearly from both the five above listed causes and many prior posts I have stated: ALL OF THE SELF'S CHOICES ARE "INFLUENCED" - My sentence is contrasting the choices that are strongly influenced by external factors with the more trivial choices that are not. I am not and never have claimed the self's choice have no cause - they ALL do, such as the five causes concisely listed above, but some are only caused by the self program only, not by external factors. (I.e. cause 5 above is not always operating such as when choosing which juice to drink.). Part now in red is clearly implied by the first part of the sentence. Stop putting words in my mouth. I have many times said that the self is NOT making random choices and that ALL of the self's choices are caused. After all it is a program running in parietal tissue. If you are not intentionally distorting you must have a reading problem.
To help keep the discusson on the issue insted of personal type atacks i will ignore you'r accusations.!!! So is it you'r POV that only the causes from the self program cause free-choise... that causes from external factors can not cause free-choise.???
Yes. To again cite my extreme example of a gun held to your head, what you chose to do then is NOT a free choice, but to use my other example, choosing tomato instead of orange juice usually is your self's "free choice," (uninfluenced by external factors) but it is still "caused." Perhaps, for example, caused by your desire not to increase your intake of vitamin C and memory of the acid indigestion you had the last time you drank OJ. No personal attack intended but yes I do accuse you of repeatedly ignoring my requests for answer to specific and listed questions.
If it will always go for the chicken, that would seem to suggest the dog has a simple "program" that runs in its head on that question and, if anything, seems reminiscent of things that lack free will. That it doesn't do what you want is not a question of free will. There are times when I have turned on my computer and it has refused point blank to boot properly. That my computers do not cave to my desires is not evidence of their having free will. Imagine, though that you had a robotic dog, and it was run by a program, and the programmer set things up to that there was a 1% change of the dog pulling to go in a different direction (and in moments where you are not interacting with it, a 25% chance that it will bring you its toys). Each time you walked with the dog, then, there would be a chance that it tried to go in a direction different from the one you wanted...and yet the robotic dog would not have "free will", it would have a program that governs its so-called "choices" quite exactly and deterministically. The dog would have no meaningful choice at all, it would simply be doing things that from your perspective seem mildly unexpected from time to time. If you agree that computers lack free will (and philosophically, it's not clear that anyone would need to do that, though if one does not, then presumably many inanimate objects have free will), then you can imagine the brain as nothing more than a very sophisticated computer running a very sophisticated program. In the deterministic view there is no "choice" when a program runs, there is only a set of well defined instructions, and we brain dependent beings are automatons that are subject to a complex delusion that we are making choices when in reality the program completely defines and determines the courses of action we undertake. Determinism is not a network of roads. Determinism is a program that tells you whether to take the left fork of the right fork, and when the program says "right" you go right. The brain tricks you into thinking you could have gone left, but really that illusion is just another part of the same program. You always do what the program tells you to do and can never do anything differently. When you change your mind, that would also be the program behaving in those "mildly unexpected" ways. You could not have *not* changed your mind at that moment, because the program will not permit you any other course of action. (The trick being that the program does make you feel like you could have chosen the other course, but that is an illusion, since your brain is just an organic computer and nothing more.) Sometimes my computers will boot up and start running a program, but the system will then crash. They were doing what I wanted at first, but then they "changed their mind" and stopped cooperating. That change is not free will at work, it's just that complex things behave in complex ways.
Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund ... So is it you'r POV that only the causes from the self program cause free-choise... that causes from external factors can not cause free-choise.??? ” Do som people have mor free-choise than others... such as people wit various types an severities of mental illness.??? You may not be satisfied wit my answrs but that woud be irrelevent to the fact that i did answr you'r questons.!!!
It may not be chicken it may be any number of other tasty morsels. The dog simply prefers other things to dry food. A computer simply runs programs, it cannot think for itself or make decisions. Animals can. I agree that the brain (any animal brain) is like a computer. However, compared to your average MAC or DELL, it's a super sophisticated computer that creates its own programs on the fly, and that is the key, the capacity to evolve its thinking capacity. When a computer is capable of thinking for itself and making its own choices then it's like the car that wants to go to W, it has free will. Even if that free will is an acquired program of the same brain it still demonstrates a capacity for changing an outcome through a specific choice. If you have a better description for it than free will then let's hear it. Why does it have to be a trick of the brain and not a positive action of the brain?. The brain is an organic computer, and nothing more. That is so flippant, it reduces the potential of the brain to an i-pad. Well, you know, it's easy to reduce everything to illusion, even our concepts of reality can be described as illusion. I can actually subscribe to this point of view in part. However, if that is the case, then what is the point of anything? If everything is a trick of the mind then that is it isn't it? No more questions to be asked, no more discoveries to make; everything's a sham, an illusion, every life form is a robot going through the motions of some illusory deterministic program created by some illusory super programmer in the illusory universe. It does in fact call into question the very nature of existence; do we actually exist or is it the illusory program telling us that we do?
Yes. in the sense that they have choices others do not have. For example the rich have more choices than the poor. The physically and mentally handicaped can not chose to do many things the healthy can but most every one has nearly an infinite set of choices, especially if doing "a" now or five minutes from now are considered to be two alternative choices. Only question (2) did you even respond to. On (1) You have never tried to defend or prove you often made assertion that choice is impossible unless the chain of prior causal events is broken. On (3) You have never defined choice or made any critical comment on my definition. For (2) your answer as to how you could interject logic instead of simply be driven by that unbroken chain is essentially no answer at all, but at least you did try. I.e. You said that you did not believe you had a real choice but acted as if you did in practical life. My question was how is that possible if you are controlled / driven by that unbroken chain of prior causal events. Again, I ask: Do you have some "spirit" that comes in to break that chain and let you use logic instead of have your selections be driven by that unbroken chain of prior causal events? If I missed your answer to either (1) or (2) please give the post number where you made a reply.
But that is the whole question. Can they? Or do they simply appear to do so because their "programs" are so complicated? There is no way to prove that animals (humans included) have any real choice. The flow of electrons and electrochemical reactions in their brains all obey precise (if probabilistic) scientific laws, and their (and our) thoughts and actions may be entirely caused by those reactions (and therefore by those laws). That is not to say there is no free will, but just that there is no evidence that irrefutably shows there is free will. Certainly the fact that I have pizza for dinner, when I could have chosen the chicken, is not irrefutable evidence that I have free will. That's also an assumption. There is no reason to believe that all of human behavior doesn't simply start with hardwired architecture and programs that are directly and deterministically caused by interaction with the environment. If the program is complex enough, it becomes hard for us to predict, but that the program does something unexpected (when it could have behaved in the way we expected) is not evidence of much of anything save its complexity. In any event, if I design a computer program that creates other computer programs, that initial program does not necessarily have a choice about what it creates. It can easily be entirely deterministic. The argument is this: "Thinking" is just a name we give to particular flows of electrons through a particular neural architecture. The flow is precisely governed by physics. Arguably, there is no way for a human to make the electrons do anything that is not entirely governed by what the physics and the architecture force those electrons to do. So the electrons will do what they are caused to do, and we call the result a "thought". If we can't independently cause immediate variations in the architecture (and we surely cannot cause the electrons to violate the laws of physics), then the way the electrons will flow is, in effect, pre-determined and not a function of our "choices". Since our actions are governed by those electrons and that brain, though, our supposed "choices" may also be forced on us by those factors. In that view "choice" is just the lie we tell ourselves about a control over our actions that we do not really possess. If you could prove indisputably that we can force the electrons to behave differently than the brain/quantum mechanics of the situation would, that would be evidence of free will. Once path some philosophers have taken in that regard is to suggest that humans can as an act of will influence the the wave function of electrons to alter the probabilities of their behaving in certain ways. That could be a path to free will, but one has to ask where that ability comes from, and how the choice to alter those probabilities is itself made. It is, in effect, saying that we can alter physics with our minds, and that our minds are separate from our brains and the physics that govern brains You seem to be assuming that "thought" is independent of the question--that in effect we choose to think about things and we choose to think about alternatives, but in the view of those who challenge free will, there is no "choice" about anything. You do it because you are forced to do it as a result of physics. You do not choose to think, thinking just happens, and you do not control your thoughts, and direct them to an outcome--what happens is that physics happens to make certain reactions happen in our brain, and we call that reaction "thought". We do not control that reaction--those thoughts--any more than iron chooses to rust in the presence of oxygen. So, the argument goes, thought itself is not a choice, it is just a complex reaction, and the content of our thoughts is not a choice, and therefore the decisions we make as a result of those thoughts are not a real choice, just the inevitable outcome of fixed physical laws. So I would turn the question around and ask, if you have proof that we can control our thoughts--that our thoughts are not the outcome of fixed scientific laws that govern the physical outcomes in our brains--please share it. "Thought" being involved in an outcome is only meaningful to the question of free will if it can be shown that that thought is not the result of fixed natural laws, but rather is controlled in a way that allows us to defy those laws. It could be either, but that is the question. To date, neither side has any compelling proof one way or the other. If free will is real, in my incompatibilist view, then the universe cannot be entirely governed by science. In that case, the way physical objects behave is caused by scientific law, but thoughts and actions are causa sui. If, on the other hand, we are our brains, and there is noo "mind" or "will" that exists separately from the physical brain, and that brain is governed by the laws of physics, then I do not see any room for free will. A very complex IPad, yes. In that sense, one might equate a balloon filled with hydrogen to the Sun. The balloon and the Sun have similarities in that both contain hydrogen, but the Sun is vastly more complex. The Sun is so complex, that we cannot always explain how or why it behaves as it does, but that inability to predict its behavior, or explain that behavior does not mean the Sun has any "free will". Instead, we all understand that the way it behaves is a result of physical laws and nothing else. Again, the question is: why is the functioning of the brain not entirely determined by physics or, if the functioning of the brain is entirely governed by physics, then what free will can there possibly be? Yes. And as a result, we have no "choice" about merely giving up and not soldiering on. We might have the illusion of a choice, but in the end, those that shut down and die did so because the program made them to that, and those that move forward and continue their lives also had no choice. If free will is an illusion, in short, then it is true that we are all automatons. That said, we are complicated automatons, just as the Sun is complicated collection of hydrogen. So being an automaton does not mean that thoughts don't exist (or love or pleasure or our own decisions, or anything else), it just means that thoughts (love, pleasure, decisions) are no more subject to our control than is the weather. The program need not be an illusion. The only thing that would certainly be an illusion if free will does not exist, is our very clear perception that we have free will. We could be real biological robots running a real and monstrously complex program, so long as that program created in us the illusion of free will. That world of biological robots would look exactly like the world we see around us. I am not sold on the notion of there being no free will, there might be; but again, if that were true, then it must be that physicalism is wrongheaded. If physicalism is wrongheaded, it means that there is more governing the universe than science alone. There is nothing contradictory in that, though, as nothing can prove that science alone governs the entire universe. For me, it creates an interesting split, though. I like to think I have free will, but I also like to imagine a universe entirely explainable by science. As I see it, one of those two preferences needs to be jettisoned.
Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund ...Do som people have mor free-choise than others... such as people wit various types an severities of mental illness.??? ” For esample... if a depressed person cuts ther wrists in order to kill therself... was the choise they made "free".??? -------------- Im not inclined to look up post numbers whare i have answred those questons but i will give quick answrs that mite refresh you'r menory for you to do a search.!!! Even tho i intelectually understan that free-choise is an illusion... i live my life as if i have free-choise.!!! The term "choise" is jus a word to denote selection.!!! What ive said is... You agree that all effects have causes (such as a row of dominos fallin into each other)... an to make a case that free-choise does esist... you need to show how the causal chane is broken in such a way that allows for free-choise to exist (which you have yet to do)... an i cant help that you dont seem able to understan it... but an unbroken causal chane does not allow for free-choise... ie... logicaly... free-choise is an illusion.!!! ---------- This discussion reminds me of the issue we discussed about a hammer throw video... whare in the video... jus befor the hammer hit the ground it apeared to be rotatin CW... even tho when the hammer was released by the thrower it was rotatin CCW... Janus58 figered out the answr... that the perceived direction of rotation was dew to the sam type of illusion as the Rotatin Lady illusion.!!! http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2162675&postcount=9 You argued that camera angles was responsible for the aparent change of direction of rotation... ie... that was anuther illusion that you was "caut by" an coudnt escept that it was in fact an illusion.!!! Rotatin Lady Illusion http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,5693171,00.gif
Off subject but I must respond to this false (now made bold in above quote) statement about me: NO it is a fact, not an illusion, that camera angle changed from the initial ground level with plane of rotation above the camera compared to a later view by camera in stands looking down on plane of rotation produces the illusion that the direction of rotation has changed. The change of view point from above to below (or conversely) ALWAYS gives the illusion that the rotation has changed for CW to CCW (or conversely) - This is a simple FACT, which you can easily understand by holding a wall clock face up over your head (I.e."view" the clock from the backside) - if you could view thru it, you would see the sweep second hand is proceeding CCW, not CW as your point of view is now form below / behind the clock. If you are not able to imagine the direction of rotation when viewing from behind the clock but have access to some stairs, you swing a weight at the end of a string CCW and have someone on the stairs above the plane of rotation tell you the direction of rotation they observe. (They will say it is CW, the reverse of what you observe.) The ambiguity of rotation of the shadow only lady is a different psychological effect -She is always seen from one side but being only a 2D image, you must guess which way she is turning. Once you guess, it is hard to see her as turning the other way. Janus was merely noting that because the image of the rotating hammer is also 2D there is some ambiguity in its direction of rotation but in this 3D hammer case, unlike the shadow lady rotation, there are some clues telling the true direction of rotation so almost all percieve it to be the same and correct, once you understand the CCW rotation seen from above the rotation is the same as CW rotation seen from below the rotation plane. That it appears to be a change in direction of rotation is the illusion. Use your imagination to "view" a wall clock from the back side and note is is going CCW for that POV! (A few such clocks are transparent to show their moving parts- then you can actual see that they go around CCW when viewed from the back.) SUMMARY: Rotation which is CW becomes CCW rotation when viewed from the other side of the plane of rotation - a simple, easily verified, FACT, not an illusion.
Yes it is off Topic to rehash that issue here... my purpos was to illistrate how one can get caut up in illusions (includin free-will/free-choise) an not realize it... but i will respond to the hammer rotation illusion in that video in the "Hammer" thred later on today (hopefuly).!!! In the mean time... how bout this issue::: Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund ...Do som people have mor free-choise than others... such as people wit various types an severities of mental illness.??? ” For esample... if a depressed person cuts ther wrists in order to kill therself... was the choise they made "free".???
Quite completely answered already in post 214. I will not respond to every special case you may invent. BTW, did you do the clock experiment and see that CCW becomes CW when you switch to the other side of the rotation plane? I.e. this reversal with perspective change is REAL, not an illusion.
oK... im guessin that you consider suiside as a free-choise.!!! in you'r POV free-choise only coms from the "self"... but un-chosen genetics are a determinin factor in how well the "self" can produce its "free-choises"... an genetics that pre-desposes somone to be depressed coud be a factor in whether the "self" chooses to cut its bodys wrists or not... sinse non-chosen genetics an *inviroment exerts control on the "self"... how are its choises considered "free".??? It seems to me that the notion that a "self" coud be 100% isolated from the external influences which could effect its ability to produce free choises... is jus that... a notion.!!! This "self" you have suggested is biological an is subject to cause an effect jus as the other parts of the brane.!!! *Particular inviroments such as whether the mother did drugs or smoked while pregnant... or starvation or prolonged stress ect. on a new born are a determinin factors on how the body (which includes the brane/"self") developes.!!! Of course thats a FACT... thats never been in dispute... it also has nuthin to do wit the issue or the soluton to the issue... an what i ment by you bein caut by that illusion... was you not bein able to realize that the rotatin lady is the sam illusion as the rotatin hammer in the slow motion video (which is the answr to the puzzle).!!! My full reply an an further replys will be in the "Hammer Throw" thred (link below) http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2162675#post2162675
