Free will ~ A product of imagination

[Quantum Quack]

The line of logic is simple:

1. If the production of fiction is uninhibited by the laws of physics,
2. and choices and decisions prior to enactment are fiction then
3. Free will is fiction, uninhibited by the laws of physics.

Thus freewill is as real as any other works of fiction, including works such as Beethoven's 5th, E=mc^2, The Laws of Thermodynamics, and so on...

If we consider the sciences as being real then we must by virtue of the axiomatic logic consider freewill to be real as well..

 

[Sarkus]

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.
Indeed.

But the key is undoubtedly that freewill is a process. Noone would argue that freewill is an output, a "product", but rather the process that leads to an output.
Sure, it might entail some imagination (another process) to generate the "options", but the actual choice is arrived at through a process. And thus it is the process that is key.
If one has to choose between A and B, freewill is not the choice of A, or the choice of B, but in the way that choice is arrived at. What A and B are might influence that process, though.

But lets say A and B are options that "defy the laws of physics"?
Does me saying: "I can choose either between flying to the moon unaided, or swallowing mount Everest!" actually defy the laws of physics?
If I then say: "Well, I'll choose to fly unaided to the moon!" does that then defy the law of physics? I have appeared to demonstrate my "freewill" in doing so, in reaching this choice.
But no, I would certainly say not. Freewill is a process. It only when we try to make that choice real that we realise that it must adhere to the laws of physics, and why such a choice is actually impossible.

I guess that we are fortunate to have sufficient capacity to generate mental simulations in which we can build a simulated universe in which the laws are different to reality. The same way a computer game can generate simulated worlds with utterly different physics to our own. But noone would be foolish enough to say that the computer is defying the laws of physics in doing so.

So freewill, as a process is "real" the way any process is real: it is the reality of the interacting synapses, neurons, atoms, molecules etc.
But there is clearly no freewill as a "product".
So the OP is, as you stated, doomed from the outset until it can overcome this blatant flaw in approach: it is not what you choose from, but how you choose that matters.

And even QQ managed to admit that he has "no dispute about 'process' being a biological function and must conform with the laws associated. None at all."
And if he said it then it must be right, eh?

 

[Quantum Quack]

But the key is undoubtedly that freewill is a process. Noone would argue that freewill is an output, a "product", but rather the process that leads to an output.
Sure, it might entail some imagination (another process) to generate the "options", but the actual choice is arrived at through a process. And thus it is the process that is key.
If one has to choose between A and B, freewill is not the choice of A, or the choice of B, but in the way that choice is arrived at. What A and B are might influence that process, though.

But lets say A and B are options that "defy the laws of physics"?
Does me saying: "I can choose either between flying to the moon unaided, or swallowing mount Everest!" actually defy the laws of physics?
If I then say: "Well, I'll choose to fly unaided to the moon!" does that then defy the law of physics? I have appeared to demonstrate my "freewill" in doing so, in reaching this choice.
But no, I would certainly say not. Freewill is a process. It only when we try to make that choice real that we realise that it must adhere to the laws of physics, and why such a choice is actually impossible.

I guess that we are fortunate to have sufficient capacity to generate mental simulations in which we can build a simulated universe in which the laws are different to reality. The same way a computer game can generate simulated worlds with utterly different physics to our own. But noone would be foolish enough to say that the computer is defying the laws of physics in doing so.

So freewill, as a process is "real" the way any process is real: it is the reality of the interacting synapses, neurons, atoms, molecules etc.
But there is clearly no freewill as a "product".
So the OP is, as you stated, doomed from the outset until it can overcome this blatant flaw in approach: it is not what you choose from, but how you choose that matters.

And even QQ managed to admit that he has "no dispute about 'process' being a biological function and must conform with the laws associated. None at all."
And if he said it then it must be right, eh?

bah! pure fiction!.... [chuckle]
As I posted earlier, a similar rhetorical question to demonstrate a point about process:

"How many fictional choices does it take to lead to a fictional decision to travel and change a light bulb 10000 kms away?"
A lifetime of creative fiction perhaps?

 

[Angelus]

Thus freewill is as real as any other works of fiction, including works such as Beethoven's 5th, E=mc^2, The Laws of Thermodynamics, and so on...

Music and scientific theories are not fiction. The are acts of creation. An artist's mind was guided by reality to produce an actual physical construct. Whether this be notes on a staff or formulas on a page. As they pondered the possible solutions to how to arrange those notes or which forces fit on opposite sides of an equals sign their brain went through a series of changes representing each of the possible solutions considered and then passed over until they arrived at the one that they finally settled. Each of these brain states arose from previous ones in accordance with physical law. Never was there a moment when there was something fictional that then had to become reality, each note, each variable, was guided by physical law through that person's brain and that out to the rest of us. The same is true of fiction itself, actually, each character, each fantastic world, each plot, exists as patterns of neurons firing in an author's brain, patterns that arose because of the patterns that existed before them, and sensory input, and governed by physical law. Free will is an illusion of perspective, it is simply that name we give to how it feels to be a pattern recognition and generating machine of sophisticated complexity.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Music and scientific theories are not fiction. The are acts of creation. An artist's mind was guided by reality to produce an actual physical construct. Whether this be notes on a staff or formulas on a page. As they pondered the possible solutions to how to arrange those notes or which forces fit on opposite sides of an equals sign their brain went through a series of changes representing each of the possible solutions considered and then passed over until they arrived at the one that they finally settled. Each of these brain states arose from previous ones in accordance with physical law. Never was there a moment when there was something fictional that then had to become reality, each note, each variable, was guided by physical law through that person's brain and that out to the rest of us. The same is true of fiction itself, actually, each character, each fantastic world, each plot, exists as patterns of neurons firing in an author's brain, patterns that arose because of the patterns that existed before them, and sensory input, and governed by physical law. Free will is an illusion of perspective, it is simply that name we give to how it feels to be a pattern recognition and generating machine of sophisticated complexity.

So we can conclude that in your opinion the product of the imagination is fully determined by the laws of physics... yes?

That creative works of literature are as determined by the laws of physics as the theoretical sciences are?

 

[Baldeee]

But the key is undoubtedly that freewill is a process. Noone would argue that freewill is an output, a "product", but rather the process that leads to an output.
Sure, it might entail some imagination (another process) to generate the "options", but the actual choice is arrived at through a process. And thus it is the process that is key.
If one has to choose between A and B, freewill is not the choice of A, or the choice of B, but in the way that choice is arrived at. What A and B are might influence that process, though.

Exactly.

But lets say A and B are options that "defy the laws of physics"?
Does me saying: "I can choose either between flying to the moon unaided, or swallowing mount Everest!" actually defy the laws of physics?
If I then say: "Well, I'll choose to fly unaided to the moon!" does that then defy the law of physics? I have appeared to demonstrate my "freewill" in doing so, in reaching this choice.
But no, I would certainly say not. Freewill is a process. It only when we try to make that choice real that we realise that it must adhere to the laws of physics, and why such a choice is actually impossible.

Agreed.
Angelus has also suggested this, in as much as such things exist "as patterns of neurons firing in an author's brain...", the patterns being the process in operation.
But the pattern, the process, adheres to the laws of physics (or whatever else one wishes to call the universal laws).

I guess that we are fortunate to have sufficient capacity to generate mental simulations in which we can build a simulated universe in which the laws are different to reality. The same way a computer game can generate simulated worlds with utterly different physics to our own. But noone would be foolish enough to say that the computer is defying the laws of physics in doing so.

Indeed.

So freewill, as a process is "real" the way any process is real: it is the reality of the interacting synapses, neurons, atoms, molecules etc.
But there is clearly no freewill as a "product".
So the OP is, as you stated, doomed from the outset until it can overcome this blatant flaw in approach: it is not what you choose from, but how you choose that matters.

With regard the question of freewill, this would absolutely be my view as well.

 

[Angelus]

So we can conclude that in your opinion the product of the imagination is fully determined by the laws of physics... yes?

That creative works of literature are as determined by the laws of physics as the theoretical sciences are?

Yes.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Yes.

Just to follow through and to explore your thoughts a little,
Do you consider both, creative works or literature and the sciences as "products" of the imagination?

What limitations, if any, do these "laws of physics" impose upon the products of the imagination? [at any given moment prior to enacting them, if ever]

 

[Angelus]

The limitations are that no person can think or create anything that it is not in their nature to think or create. There are certain patterns in your brain, those patterns are changed by sensory input, and then those patterns cause you to act in certain ways. Some patterns are arrangements of notes, and other patterns manipulate those patterns, and then others lead you to record the result. Some are simulations of worlds unlike our own, and others lead you to write those visions down. What patterns any one person has in their minds is entirely dependent on their genetics and on the sensory input their brains have received. Patterns representing things that are not within the realm of our physical reality are still themselves patterns that exist well within those laws. It's a matter of abstraction. A computer can display an image that is unlike anything that could exist in reality, and yet that image is merely pixels of light on a screen, well within the laws of this world, and it is sent to that screen as 1s and 0s, and stored and transmitted as such. Also well within the laws of physics. The same is true of our minds, what the patterns of neurons represent is irrelevant, what matters is the patterns themselves, and those patterns exist in reality. As I said before, there is no moment before these things are enacted where they become reality, they are part of reality all along.

 

[Quantum Quack]

The limitations are that no person can think or create anything that it is not in their nature to think or create. There are certain patterns in your brain, those patterns are changed by sensory input, and then those patterns cause you to act in certain ways. Some patterns are arrangements of notes, and other patterns manipulate those patterns, and then others lead you to record the result. Some are simulations of worlds unlike our own, and others lead you to write those visions down. What patterns any one person has in their minds is entirely dependent on their genetics and on the sensory input their brains have received. Patterns representing things that are not within the realm of our physical reality are still themselves patterns that exist well within those laws. It's a matter of abstraction. A computer can display an image that is unlike anything that could exist in reality, and yet that image is merely pixels of light on a screen, well within the laws of this world, and it is sent to that screen as 1s and 0s, and stored and transmitted as such. Also well within the laws of physics. The same is true of our minds, what the patterns of neurons represent is irrelevant, what matters is the patterns themselves, and those patterns exist in reality. As I said before, there is no moment before these things are enacted where they become reality, they are part of reality all along.

Thanks for your post:

A couple of things...
Firstly,
In the OP I mentioned the following:

[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.

1. The choices we make using our imagination are total fiction, a mere fantasy of choice and decisions yet to be enacted.
2. The laws of physics only become deterministic upon enacting decisions or choices, and not before and in most (*some) cases "oppresses" that inner freedom in the process.
3. 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]

I do realize this is directly in conflict with what you are suggesting. Even if we take genetics for a moment your point could be debated using:
"Years ago when the posted sentries of indigenous tribes of ..... failed to observe a fleet of European ships enter the bay and when they finally managed to observe them it was to late"
I can not recall this effect which was thoroughly debunked.
Suffice to say that the alleged limitations imposed by genetics, education, knowledge, and even belief systems does not appear to prevent observation [ thus thought ] of things that are beyond the scope of those alleged limitations.

This is premised on the notion that if you are unable to think about it [ physically - hard wired processes] then you are unable to witness it.
I believe this phenomena has been thoroughly refuted.
If I can find the research I may post some links.

My question:
If as you say was correct then would it not severely limit the capacity of science or humans generally to observe phenomena outside the range of their alleged limitations?

Secondly,
Based on the premise that we humans can observe "what there is to observe" with out limitations, therefore "think" about what there is to observe with out limitations, does this not suggest to you that the imagination is only "Oppressed" or "inhibited" by conditioning generated by instilled beliefs, emotional hubris and other forms of conditioning and not the Laws of Physics per see?

 

[Dazz]

My question:
If as you say was correct then would it not severely limit the capacity of science or humans generally to observe phenomena outside the range of their alleged limitations?

Not directed to me but responding anyway.
Hya. How you doing?
Not necessarily specially about non-enacted phenomena, since as we posses the pattern or code per say, we choose what to do with it.
Althought if we use the computer allegory, we may recognize that whenever the computer is faced with coding or patterns it does not recognize or decypher, shit happens. Althought we are not machines and our creativity has proven itself already beyond any kind of measure, to ditch this clausule for good i may say that the pattern issued by Angelus on a recent post, is simply an analogy and does not represent accurately how vast human creation can be.

Secondly,
Based on the premise that we humans can observe "what there is to observe" with out limitations, therefore "think" about what there is to observe with out limitations, does this not suggest to you that the imagination is only "Oppressed" or "inhibited" by conditioning generated by instilled beliefs, emotional hubris and other forms of conditioning and not the Laws of Physics per see?

How so? Isn't it already doing just that? Or maybe it is not revealing to itself the physical contraptions of the observable world around itself, like when we unconsciously think something when we see anything that triggers our instincts. It is looking but not seeing. We see a wall, we know that we can't cross it without hitting it. Besides the plethora of subjective exposition we may have suffered we still know that that wall is going to stand in my way, either if i decide (and try) to cross it or not.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Originally Posted by Quantum Quack View Post

My question:
If as you say was correct then would it not severely limit the capacity of science or humans generally to observe phenomena outside the range of their alleged limitations?

Not directed to me but responding anyway.
Hya. How you doing?

Hi Dazz, doing good, I think!
Welcome to the thread!

Not necessarily specially about non-enacted phenomena, since as we posses the pattern or code per say, we choose what to do with it.
Although if we use the computer allegory, we may recognize that whenever the computer is faced with coding or patterns it does not recognize or decypher, shit happens. Althought we are not machines and our creativity has proven itself already beyond any kind of measure, to ditch this clausule for good i may say that the pattern issued by Angelus on a recent post, is simply an analogy and does not represent accurately how vast human creation can be.

Indeed "vast" it is...
It is rather sad, in my opinion and that of others, that we Humans can look upon our selves with such "pride" in our achievements and yet think of ourselves in such limiting terms simultaneously. Often it seems equating a human being with a computer or a robot/android, abet, a sophisticated one, tends to reinforce the belief that some how we are as limited by the analogies we create. A sort of psycho-somatically induced creativity straightjacket. The difference between an artificial intelligence and a human organic intelligence may appear to be relatively small [re: processing of data], but that small difference is massive when it comes to describing the nature of terms like life, imagination, consciousness, knowledge, choice, decisions, freedom, self animation & self determination etc. IMO

Secondly,
Based on the premise that we humans can observe "what there is to observe" with out limitations, therefore "think" about what there is to observe with out limitations, does this not suggest to you that the imagination is only "Oppressed" or "inhibited" by conditioning generated by instilled beliefs, emotional hubris and other forms of conditioning and not the Laws of Physics per see?

How so? Isn't it already doing just that? Or maybe it is not revealing to itself the physical contraptions of the observable world around itself, like when we unconsciously think something when we see anything that triggers our instincts. It is looking but not seeing. We see a wall, we know that we can't cross it without hitting it. Besides the plethora of subjective exposition we may have suffered we still know that that wall is going to stand in my way, either if i decide (and try) to cross it or not.

The point I was attempting to make was directed to someone I believed to be considering that we humans are limited by:

Posted by Angelus:
The limitations are that no person can think or create anything that it is not in their nature to think or create.

Which implied contextually, that "our nature" is defined according to his own interpretation of that nature premised on his belief in the limiting nature of the "laws of physics" which is the subject of contention to begin with.

Key words:
inhibited,
oppressed
and
limited

I countered by suggesting that our natures were:

...humans can observe "what there is to observe" with out limitations, therefore "think" about what there is to observe with out limitations

To simply describe a belief in determinism as the refutation is insufficient. IMO

And yes, most of which is being discussed is axiomatic [ self evident ] but has to be open to debate regardless.

I apologize to all those caught up in the heat that this thread has generated.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Besides the plethora of subjective exposition we may have suffered we still know that that wall is going to stand in my way, either if i decide (and try) to cross it or not.

Would you care to elaborate/clarify on this...

 

[Sarkus]

Not necessarily specially about non-enacted phenomena, since as we posses the pattern or code per say, we choose what to do with it.
Althought if we use the computer allegory, we may recognize that whenever the computer is faced with coding or patterns it does not recognize or decypher, shit happens. Althought we are not machines and our creativity has proven itself already beyond any kind of measure, to ditch this clausule for good i may say that the pattern issued by Angelus on a recent post, is simply an analogy and does not represent accurately how vast human creation can be.

On what basis do you say that we are not machines? What more is there than just complexity that differentiates us from what you might consider a machine?
Why do you think Angelus' post put a limit on, or inaccurately represent, the size/scope of human creation? Maybe you simply misunderstand what he means by what "is not in their nature to think or create"?
And how would you link your statements to the nature of freewill?

 

[Quantum Quack]

deleted

 

[Baldeee]

On what basis do you say that we are not machines? What more is there than just complexity that differentiates us from what you might consider a machine?
Why do you think Angelus' post put a limit on, or inaccurately represent, the size/scope of human creation? Maybe you simply misunderstand what he means by what "is not in their nature to think or create"?

"Complexity" would be my rational explanation.
The problem with trying to differentiate by subjective things like emotion, intelligence etc, is that, at least to me, these are also just a matter of complexity.
As would our ability to overcome our instinct.
As would the process of freewill.
But then I'm someone who thinks we're just a biological machine, governed by the laws of physics (or whatever one refers to the universal laws as).
The kicker is in appreciating the complexity of that machine and all the wonders that it can do, and is capable of.
Such as imagining, dreaming, reaching for more than they might think themselves capable of.
All that wonderful stuff.
And it is all governed by the laws of the universe.
So I think the "nature" that Angelus refers to is far wider than that which we are aware / conscious of.
In fact, I would say that anything we do is, by definition, within our nature.

 

[Quantum Quack]

On what basis do you say that we are not machines? What more is there than just complexity that differentiates us from what you might consider a machine? >> A few things , Imagination for one
Why do you think Angelus' post put a limit on, or inaccurately represent, the size/scope of human creation? >> because Angelus imagination is too severely oppressed, due to determinists indoctrination to think other wise perhaps?
Maybe you simply misunderstand what he means by what "is not in their nature to think or create"? >>maybe Dazz doesn't suffer the indoctrination that Angelus, Sarkus and Baldeee suffer from?
And how would you link your statements to the nature of freewill? >>I would ...see above and below

If we accept that the human mind has an Imagination, and that imagination is uninhibited by the "Laws of Physics" then by virtue of the observable existence of an Imagination one could conclude that the uninhibited nature of the imagination is a product of the "laws of physics" ~ laws that are waiting to be revealed.

If imagination is what affords us our freewill then there is no reason to consider freewill to be in defiance of the "laws of physics" in fact one could consider that freewill is "enshrined" by the laws of physics.

 

[Quantum Quack]

So I think the "nature" that Angelus refers to is far wider than that which we are aware / conscious of.
In fact, I would say that anything we do is, by definition, within our nature.>> and that is about the most sensible thing I think you have posted in this thread. IMO.

I can only repeat what I posted earlier:

It is rather sad, in my opinion and that of others, that we Humans can look upon our selves with such "pride" in our achievements and yet think of ourselves in such limiting terms simultaneously. Often it seems equating a human being with a computer or a robot/android, abet, a sophisticated one, tends to reinforce the belief that some how we are as limited by the analogies we create. A sort of psycho-somatically induced creativity straightjacket. The difference between an artificial intelligence and a human organic intelligence may appear to be relatively small [re: processing of data], but that small difference is massive when it comes to describing the nature of terms like life, imagination, consciousness, knowledge, choice, decisions, freedom, self animation & self determination etc. IMO

Two of the key differences between a machine [ even a biological one ] and a self determined human are FEAR and IMAGINATION. IMO

This video demonstrates quite clearly, Fear and imagination in combination from a multitude of perspectives... [ including the authors and viewers]
[video=youtube;WjeptaI2T8E]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjeptaI2T8E[/video]

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Elephants are not expected to fly -- their "elephant-hood" is what differentiates them from parrots; likewise people aren't expected to move the Moon by sheer desire, they are not defined as gods to begin with. Organisms are "free" to be variable within the context of their specific ontological templates [that's all it ever can be if Bolo is to remain a dog and Martha Stewart is to remain a homo sapiens sapiens]. Even Bolo might refuse to fetch the stick on some days, dogs are not perfectly predictable machines falling under the iron-clad legislation of some universal principle, their responses can vary within their template.

Variation in responses can have the apperance of free choise... but just like wit human actions... thers no explanation of how Bolo is not simply a part of a casual chain.!!!

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

Thers no "central headquarters" (near or far... lol) that i know of... but by ignorin external causes... an assumin that human actions begin wit the brain... then poof... jus like magic... free will

 

[Quantum Quack]

Thers no "central headquarters" (near or far... lol) that i know of... but by ignorin external causes... an assumin that human actions begin wit the brain... then poof... jus like magic... free will

I guess that is what imagination is often referred to... magic!

Imagination = freewill = magic! hmmmm.....