Do we have freewill ? is it biblical ?

[billvon]

No matter how hard you try to match A and B as presented, you cannot undo your brain's programming to see them differently.

But I do see them as similar darknesses, now that I am aware of the illusion. We can easily override our basic programming if we want to. We can diet, not hate black people, climb cliffs and jump out of airplanes. That's because we have free will and can override those instincts.

 

[Write4U]

Free will has nothing to do with overriding perception.

It has to do with autonomous subconscious fundamental biochemical (deterministic) brain function v conscious "best guess" (predictive) brain function.

The point being that in the example, the conscious brain function cannot override the unconscious physical brain function. It has its physical limitations and DNA fixed physical neural processes depend on sensory input as it relates to the environmental "image" the brain is able to process
Thus the a priori function at work is purely chemical and determines the ultimate conscious behavior of the brain itself, because the conscious brain is in many respects removed from direct access to the exterior condition and can only make a best guess of what the physics is being processed .

It is excellent in maintaining pure biochemical homeostasis in the organism, but as is evident the conscious brain can be highly unreliable as how reality is being processed.

The only free will that exists is between individual "minds". Each brain has the freedom to evolve decision making based on sufficient relative information, IOW, our brains are able to "invent" ways how we can interact with our environment. And as those inventions are being developed all new discoveries add to the knowledge of universal physical functions.

I would say that medicine is a way to "cheat" the natural deterministic future, and may be an expression of free will? We can influence the future to a degree. That makes each of us a causal agent.

 

[Write4U]

But I do see them as similar darknesses, now that I am aware of the illusion.

I don't believe you. You and I know that the shades are the same, but you cannot avoid the false shadow which creates a "differential equation" in the brain that has been conditioned to relational wave functions since the eye was evolved. The squares just appear different in the given observable pattern.

If reality is in the eye of the beholder it is logical to assume great freedom of relational optical expressions. Nature itself makes those expressions evident via Natural Selection.

Is that the result of Free Will or Probability? How about "Necessity and Sufficiency"?

Or can we ask at what point mathematics prohibit variety of expression?

Is an expressed "fractal" proof of free will or determinism?

 

[Baldeee]

I understand the term quite well. It is a perfect example of deterministic brain function overriding free will.

It's not a matter of one overriding the other, and as such I tend to agree with DaveC462913 that you don't quite understand the terms you're using.
The debate is whether we have freewill or not (a term that I see has yet to be adequately described or defined by yourself, but we are where we are).
If we have freewill, does that preclude some instances where that freewill is not enactable?
Does the lack of freewill in one instance mean that it simply does not exist?
Or is the lack of freewill in that instance effectively a red-herring with regard the larger question of whether it exists at all, given that it doesn't actually look at the nature of freewill and how that might, or might not, fit within the universe somehow.

What I am presenting is a deterministic brain function that you cannot override by will. So far, it's the only real-world demonstration of this fact in this discussion. Can you do better?

My answer is that I think it is an irrelevant example with regard the question of this thread, which possibly explains why noone had as yet provided such an example.
The obvious follow-up question is: so what?
What do you think you are answering with regard whether or not freewill exists at all by showing an instance where it does not?
Are you going to show every instance possible, and show that it does not exist in any of them?
Or have you perchance already concluded that freewill does exist, and have simply changed the direction of the thread to suit your own interests, rather than the actual topic?

 

[Baldeee]

Free will has nothing to do with overriding perception.

It does if one takes freewill to mean the ability to do what one wants all the time.
If there is an instance where "choices" are restricted, such as not being able to override our perception, this maybe means that we have no such "freewill" as defined.
But then I would consider this a rather trite and pointless definition, of little (if any) use.
And the sooner we reject that notion of freewill the better.

Otherwise, for other, more meaningful notions, I agree.
Further, showing where there is perhaps no freewill doesn't help answer the question of whether there is any freewill at all, whether it exists at all.
It is but a single example of absence in a realm of infinite examples where it might exist.
Unless he intends to go through them one by one, the better course would probably be to look at the principles at play rather than examples.

 

[Write4U]

Does the lack of freewill in one instance mean that it simply does not exist?
Or is the lack of freewill in that instance effectively a red-herring with regard the larger question of whether it exists at all, given that it doesn't actually look at the nature of freewill and how that might, or might not, fit within the universe somehow.

Exactly, what I am showing is that there are relational dynamics that are totally outside our experience due to focused sensitivity.
However, predicting the future based on recognition of patterns is what we do real well and that may contribute to "invention" or "discovery" of ways how to learn to solve potential problems, so that we may be prepared when the question arises and that is a survival instinct, the autonomous cellular responses to external pressures.
If anything, free will is an emergent excellence of understanding complex processes from memory. As the library expands, the greater the information of available choices, and ability to make a "best guess" of from an individual POV.

Unless he intends to go through them one by one, the better course would probably be to look at the principles at play rather than examples.

I disagree, hard evidence of one thing can be very informative about the theoretical argument. In this case it has been demonstrated that there are certain processes that the brain is unable to explain, even if the observed phenomenon argues against any notion of free will.
In the checkerboard example, the brain's interpretation of the available data is the perception that B is lighter than it is and it will remain so even if you know that you are being fooled by the physics. The phenomenon persists regardless whether you know that the squares are identical. This is where any will has no effect on the physics.

This may not be a complete answer to such a general Question. But it is a "bit" of information in the discovery if free will is possible and what form of control it can exert on quantum processes, such as the chess board illusion
(I refer to Anil Seth whose concept is that our brain processes "controlled hallucination", but that every individual brain produces different "hallucinatory" interpretations. Currently, there are about 8 billion differently deterministic human organisms on earth, each with a uniquely evolved experience and response system that are facilitated by the brain's capacity for processing complex data and making a prediction based on its subjective personal experience.

We speak of self-fulfilling wishes, but these predictions of future events is the cognition of a deterministic chronology that logically should result in this specific event. So by interrupting this chronology we might be able to change the probabilities of different expressions of this future event. But if we do build that levee, we have altered the future behavior of that river in regard to the floodplain. The choice to build the levee was but one of several scenarios being considered.
There may well be conflicting physics that can result in catastrophic events such as Supernovae, where all extant deterministic life-lines are severed or lead to catastrophe and only chaos remains, to begin the deterministic ordering process over again from a new beginning.

 

[billvon]

I don't believe you.

I don't care what you believe. My reason overrides my initial thought that the squares are different colors. Same way my reason overrides all the erroneous perceptual clues I get when I am driving, flying or boating.

You may not be able to override that. That's your problem, not mine.

 

[Write4U]

delete for duplication

 

[Write4U]

I don't care what you believe. My reason overrides my initial thought that the squares are different colors. Same way my reason overrides all the erroneous perceptual clues I get when I am driving, flying or boating.

You may not be able to override that. That's your problem, not mine.

You cannot override it either. I don't care what you think you can do.
When you look at that checkerboard you see different shades of gray and there is nothing you can do about it.
Reason has nothing to do with it.

 

[Tiassa]

It has to do with autonomous subconscious fundamental biochemical (deterministic) brain function v conscious "best guess" (predictive) brain function.

There was this time I got so high I forgot two important things, and fell for flying penguins.

Or the time I just started randomly speculating without realizing how common a name was, and trash-talked a complete stranger who probably never knew. It was good dope, though. Really good.

Now, then, how many times did I embarrass myself while drunk?

It's a lot less embarrassing if I can shrug and say that's how it was supposed to go.

Nothing happens without God.

That shart, the other day? Dude, that was the intersection of divinity and your ass. Or, more scientifically, the Universe needed that to happen; by those stripes it is fulfilled. It's the math, dude, it's the math.

 

[Write4U]

That shart, the other day?

What exactly does that mean? Can you clarify?

It's the math, dude, it's the math

Right, it is the generic logical universal function of relational values interacting via mathematically controlled physical processes . I have advanced that concept many times in the course of universal deterministic mechanics.

I have been accused of worshipping Max Tegmark for his Mathematical Universe. Are you agreeing with me that Tegmark's theory is fundamentally sound?

The universal mathematical mechanics appear to be controlled by a causal agency but that is a false impression. That is why I am a hard atheist as far as any concept of a biblical god is concerned.

Mathematical functions are quasi-intelligent in that they lack causal free will. But universal generic mathematica functions are the guiding forces that in a dynamic environment become expressed in a probabilistic fashion dependent on an ever-changing environment, not by free will.

Free will can be mathematically impossible. Leaping tall buildings in a single bound may be possible on the moon, but on earth it is mathematically forbidden due to gravity.

Where does that argument lack in logic?

 

[Tiassa]

What exactly does that mean? Can you clarify?

Compared to free will, there will at least be the comfort of knowing our inconvenient sharts were predetermined necessities of the Universe.

 

[billvon]

You cannot override it either.

And yet I do - regularly. My reason overrrides it. That's why I can climb mountains and jump out of airplanes, despite what my visual system is telling me.

Again, I do not really care what you think. You have demonstrated that you are pseudoscience believer, and I will treat your opinions accordingly.

 

[Write4U]

Compared to free will, there will at least be the comfort of knowing our inconvenient sharts were predetermined necessities of the Universe.

I agree, and can it be said that at least in that respect free will has absolutely no influence. But as Brian Green observes, we have a special technical ability to use human symbolic maths to predict future trends or certain linear chronologies that may be causal to our decision to take specific actions in anticipation of these expected events.
But of course, every action that is eventually decided on is still a deterministic result of physical interactive causal permissions and restrictions.

As to predetermination. Is chaos pre-deterministic or probabilistic in the self-organization of patterns?

 

[Write4U]

And yet I do - regularly. My reason overrrides it. That's why I can climb mountains and jump out of airplanes, despite what my visual system is telling me.

That does not answer the question at all or alter the fact that you are unable to even influence your own brain to "see" the squares as having identical properties.

Again, I do not really care what you think. You have demonstrated that you are pseudoscience believer, and I will treat your opinions accordingly.

Sure, ad hominem will always win the day, right?
When are you going to positively contribute to any discussion without the need for derision and just general bad manners. You are demonstrating that you have no beliefs at all, but have a plethora of criticisms.

If you know what it's all about, why do you refuse to make a positive contribution? Perhaps you don't know for sure what its all about, just like all deep thinkers who all seem to follow a slightly different logic to come to 3 separate scientific possibilities plus a bunch of wholly imaginary bunch of mystical and mythical interpretations.

 

[DaveC426913]

When are you going to positively contribute to any discussion ...

Well here's a thought: perhaps you could not offer your personal unsubstantiated beliefs as if they are fact and can dictate what other people can and can't do...

You cannot override it either. I don't care what you think you can do.
When you look at that checkerboard you see different shades of gray and there is nothing you can do about it.

 

[DaveC426913]

why do you refuse to make a positive contribution...

Hey pot: meet kettle. Billvon, like the rest of us, has his hands full just undoing your negative copy-paste word salad contributions.

 

[Write4U]

No you don't. Slinging ad hominem is not undoing any of the science I quote. It is not informative in any way other than to criticize and display a superior hypocrisy

Please explain "undoing my negative copy-paste word salad contributions". By calling me names? If that is your interpretation of a positive contribution to a scientific subject then that does not merit any attention at all.

 

[Write4U]

Well here's a thought: perhaps you could not offer your personal unsubstantiated beliefs as if they are fact and can dictate what other people can and can't do...

Oh, but what I post is substantiated science. If you doubt my sources, check them out.
I provided proof of this particular example of a conditioned survival mechanism.
Watch the Youtube demonstration. It provides proof of the claim.

Why is that considered "unsubstantiated beliefs", pray tell?
There is always an advice "tell us in your own words". Why is that preferable over "telling it with a scientist's words"?

 

[DaveC426913]

There is always an advice "tell us in your own words". Why is that preferable over "telling it with a scientist's words"?

Because it has been very well established and is on public record that you have no idea what you're talking about and copy-paste stuff based on your pet trigger words without understanding of what you're saying. At some point, we are no longer obliged to indulge your brand of trolling.