The illusion of free will

I dont know about that... but i havent seen any evidence that everthang about "me" isnt part of the causal chain.!!!

Do you thank humans are anythang more than biological.???

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

it is in the what is meant by biological that may provide an answer for you on that...ultimately it comes down to the big question about life generally. What is life? And how does it differentiate from that which is not considered to be living.

If you asked:
Do you thank humans are anythang more than living biological beings.???
my answer is no however it is what makes the "living" bit that I believe makes the difference. [ Remember the obvious, a corpse has no will ]

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So now I need to do your legwork for you? I'm the one that needs to supply the missing pieces to turn your notions into logical conclusions??

I know what it appears to be, but I am not so rigid as to require that my definition be the only one under consideration.

They exist in as much as they are patterns of behaviour, and as much as patterns could be said to exist.

What precisely do you not understand in that sentence.
Do you believe in "magic", QQ? do you think magicians are actually performing real "magic" on stage?
Or do you think that what they appear to demonstrate actually defy the laws of physics (i.e. the underlying mechanics)?
That you think the sentence nonsensical certainly gives a reference to the notions you find to be of sense.

Do I think all actions are governed by cause and effect? Mostly. I think there are some effects for which the cause is either hidden or non-existent. But if had followed any of the past 20 or so pages of our discussion you would know that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

more nonsense..
you simply refuse to commit to a position hey?
what's your position now ?
That free will is a "sort of illusion" uhm sometimes... maybe and fairies do exist sometimes maybe... bah!

 

try this as a definition of freewill:

"Free will is the ability to choose freely between at least two choices with out any regard to the future consequences or ramifications of making that choice."

any good?
no fairies nor illusions required.
Example:
man in room.
in front of man are two buttons A & B
man has no knowledge of what each button does if selected.
man has to either choose or not choose.
Against better judgement that was telling him to abstain from choosing the man chooses button A and destroys New York with out knowing he did so.
How is C&E determining his "blind" choice? [that leads to the destruction of New York]

 

How about this:

Free will is the second law of thermodynamics giving rise to choice in a brain. The input and output of the brain? The second law!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

@Yazata and Sarkus, Thanks for the definitions. I'm still thinking. It might take a while for this one.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The wording has to be very precise!

 

And which part do you find nonsensical, exactly?
My own view is that either freewill is defined merely as the appearance of self-determination (in which case it exists as it is defined) or that, if it is defined to be genuine self-determination, it is an illusion.
E.g. If one looks at a mirage of a pool of water, one can define it either as a mirage (I.e. as an appearance of a pool of water) - in which case it exists as it is defined - or one defines it as a pool of water, in which case I would argue that it is just an illusion and does not exist as defined.
The difference between a mirage and freewill is that our consciousness can recognise that a mirage is just an appearance, whereas it has no means of doing so with regard freewill.

 

Random selections by computers would thus qualify as demonstrations of freewill.

You mean other than in the processing within his brain of his surroundings, his experiences, his desires, emotions, his genes, the subconscious workings of his body, and the various feedback loops and other elements of him as a dynamic system?
You mean apart from those?

 

nope ... try again..."apparent but not actual" random selection by a living self animated being is called what? [not random but improvisation]

Nope again... duck and dive...

Maybe he chose button A because his moms names starts with the letter A and he was feeling a little sentimental.
So what has his moms name got to do with the destruction of New york?

 

Merely saying "nope" does not negate what I said.
You gave the definition: "Free will is the ability to choose freely between at least two choices with out any regard to the future consequences or ramifications of making that choice."
Do you concur that a computer has no "regard to the future consequences or ramifications" of their output?
So is your issue that computers can not choose freely? If so, other than begging the question of what it is "to choose", what exactly is your issue?

I'm not sure what the question is in reference to here. Was the "not random but improvisation" your attempt to answer your own question?

How is that ducking and diving? Can you not see my answer veiled in the rhetorical question?
If not, let me spell it out for you: the cause and effect 'determining his "blind" choice' is in the processing within his brain of his surroundings, his experiences, his desires, emotions, his genes, the subconscious workings of his body, and the various feedback loops and other elements of him as a dynamic system.
The system is driven by cause and effect: one moment causes the next etc.
If all you're going to say is "nope" then please have the decency to explain what you disagree with. Or perhaps the "duck and dive" was merely a warning to me of what your current modus operandi is?

You mean other than that was the reason for him pressing the button which was connected, via some mechanical or electrical means to the method of destroying the city?
Oh, sorry, you don't like answers posed as rhetorical questions: His mother's name would be the reason for him pressing the button which was connected, via some mechanical or electrical means to the method of destroying the city. Whether he is aware of the link between the button-press and the destruction of the city is irrelevant to the issue of cause and effect from one to the other.
But since all that happens past the point of what you consider to be evidence for freewill, of what relevance is your question other than to highlight your own inadequate understanding of your own examples? :shrug:

 

A computer is incapable of having regard... (responsibility) not that it has no regard but that it is incapable of regard.
And a computer can very well be developed to demonstrate an illusion of freewill with it's illusionary responsibility.
The rest of your post is much the same, and simply not worth the effort trying to clarify the issues within it.

 

So we agree that free will does not come from random events... an that cause an effect occurs in the brain... but you simply label the cause an effect that occurs in the brain as free will.!!!

I simply accept the evidence for what it is... that cause an effect... even in the brain... eliminates the ability to choose otherwise... ie... choice is not free.!!!

 

isn't that the same as saying,

"I can only choose what I choose, there fore, as I can never be free of me, my choices are not free?"

 

Free-will

Question or Questioning

And curiosity as well

 

Brainstorming. Free association. conceptualizing/inventing/imagining some thing or fantasy which never occurred/existed before. Making games with your own rules, and then changing the rules as you fancy 'just to see what happens/results'. Ability to 'empathize' with 'other'. Making plans for the far distant future, far removed from immediate causes, effects, considerations and imperatives etc.

All these things taken together demonstrate the scope and freedom of will to go beyond any sort of neural/physical 'deeper level' alleged deterministic-chain of 'causes' and hardwired 'programming'.

It's all in the brain-mind 'software and fuzzy logic system' which humans have evolved to operate as a way of freeing themselves from the mere survival stage of 'being/reacting' to the environment. We can make up our own physical/mental 'environment' beyond that which we inherited as 'animals'.


If you can imagine 'eternity' and 'infinity' and other abstract concepts/constructs which have no genesis/parallel in the deterministic world of animal neural hardwiring and problem solving for survival imperatives first and foremost, then you are engaging in free will contemplation of worlds not in evidence and not 'caused' or 'programmed' by any prior neuronal interaction/permutation as such.


Good luck in your reality, everyone!

 

The software , fuzzy logic system ... ?

 

Yet your own previous argument would have us believe that the computer is indeed capable of regard... regard of "nothing". Compare this to where you consider an unconscious person to be conscious of "nothing". You can't have your cake and eat it, QQ.

Then you are left with the same nonsense that you continue to post, with the same illogic you employ to reach your flawed conclusions.
You have offered nothing, and you continue to offer nothing, either by way of explanation of your own position, or in criticism of others'. But then I suspect the irony of that is lost on you.

 

It does if you mean by that... that "cause an effect... even in the brain... eliminates the ability to choose otherwise... ie... choice is not free.!!!"

 

Agreed.
In as much as "me" is also an effect driven by causality.
I.e. the same things that give rise to "I" give rise to "freewill".
Are they inextricably linked?
Two aspects of the same system?
Can one be conscious without freewill?
Does freewill necessarily follow from consciousness?

But, as I understand it, whereas "I" does not go counter to the mechanisms of the universe, the sense of "freewill" does.
In other words, "I" is an emergent property that merely adds to the properties of the underlying system.
"Freewill", while an emergent property, if is genuinely doing what we seem then it requires mechanisms that go counter to that underlying system.
Hence freewill is/can be considered illusory.
The "I" is not.

 

You really need to define the freewill you are referring to. My guess is that of course it is an illusion using your definition.
There is no doubt that all choices are made due to causes. However if we were able to freely choose what causes we wished to be influenced by [which we certainly are and do] what then?