Freewill - an act of improvisation?

[Quantum Quack]

An example or two....

Jim, lives in poverty, smokes like a chimney and drinks like a fish.
He receives a small allowance from the government but finds that to support his vices he has to collect empty aluminium drink cans, which he surrenders for cash at the recycler's.

Within the range of his circumstances he is able to freely choose from his percieved choices, limited that they may be. (freewill)

Hans, on the other hand lives a life of some wealth, is able to travel when ever he chooses, has no solid vices or addictions, is happilly married and is well educated. He often chooses to donate to societies that help the homeless.

With in the range of his cuircumstances he is able to choose freely from his percieved choices, Limited only by his imagination and cash flow. ( free will )

Then we have Tom who like Hans has all the wealth adn freedom from addiction but becasue of government regulation is unable to excersise his freedom to choose as he wishes. His life is one of oppression and he lives in fear barracaded in his home.

With in the range of his circumstances he is unable to choose freely. He is limited by a government and in this sense has limited ability to excersise his freewill.

So to surmise freewill is determined by how freely we can choose from our percieved choices available.

If our choice is determined by some thing else, say a Government then our freedom is diminished. But if our freedom is enhanced by the Government ( such as Jim case - small allowance given ) then freewill is enhanced.

 

[invert_nexus]

What is Tom is mentally ill and this is the reason for his fear of being barricaded in his house? The government actually has no interest in him whatsoever. It is Tom's will that he should be persecuted. He persecutes himself. His limitation of choices is completely self-induced. Does he still have limited ability to pursue free will? He limits it himself (even if "he" in this case is the "other")

 

[John Connellan]

Yah, but it depends on what level or in what sphere one doesn't have free will. Context.

There is only 1 sphere IMO: the universe. I don't see any context within the universe where we could have free will I'm afraid.

I think that in my everyday life I have some free will, therefore in my everyday life I have some free will.

No, u think u have free will. U really have to get a grip on the differences between whats out there and apparition. (e.g. it appears that each species is adapted and shaped towards its environment but say that to a biologist and he will hit u!). Adaptation, from a creationists point of view is an apparition and not the underlying process.

One thing is sure: play with your cat!
(a hint)

Oh my God, u keep coming up with gorgeous new kittens

 

[Quantum Quack]

What is Tom is mentally ill and this is the reason for his fear of being barricaded in his house? The government actually has no interest in him whatsoever. It is Tom's will that he should be persecuted. He persecutes himself. His limitation of choices is completely self-induced. Does he still have limited ability to pursue free will? He limits it himself (even if "he" in this case is the "other")

An intereting question Nexus

I would in this case use the example of a person who has had an arm amputated. Does this limit his ability to excersise free will? The lack of an arm limits his choices but does it limit his freewill?

Does Toms disability limit his choices? I would think the anwser is yes. Does he still have freedom to choose from the choices his mind allows him? I think the answer would be yes.

 

[John Connellan]

I see u are using a different definition of freewill QQ. U believe it is mainly to do with choice whereas I believe it is about control.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Maybe John you could expand on your definition being more about control?

 

[Quantum Quack]

btw Nexus I didn't get a chance to read your larger post on page 1 until now. My e-mail system is stuffed.....you posed some interesting stuff there I thought

 

[Quantum Quack]

Nexus, possibily you may recall the interview and study of a woman who had split brain surgery. I recall her saying something quite incredible:
"When I went to select a pair of shorts to wear, my brain chose two instead of one." or something to that effect.
I recall feeling amazed that she experienced a conflict between the two halves of her brain ( as this they felt was the cause). She says that her left side wanted a different pair of shorts to her right brain.

Care to comment?

 

[John Connellan]

Maybe John you could expand on your definition being more about control?

Sure

I have always belived that freewill is the ability to have control in what one chooses to do. It is not only about the number of things that are possible. Forexample, a kid has 5 textbooks in his bag. One for each subject. He is really in the mood for geography today and if he had free will he would take that book out and read it. He has a lot of choices of book to read from but he doesn't have free will coz the teacher comes in and forces him to open a different book.

This is what goes on in a universe without the presence of "super-nature" or God.

 

[water]

But, I have heard of research that shows that even before the signal to move the arm comes (light on a screen or something), the body is already preparing to move the arm. The though to move the arm actually comes after the arm begins moving. There are all kinds of problems with such a simple test of free will.

I read (Spiegel Special 4/2003) about this. But it is a matter of how we interpret such findings. What can be seen in such tests is that *awareness* is something that comes later. It's like the brain "calculates" the whole thing on a level we are not aware of, and only as the "equation" is completed that we become aware of it.

But, like I pointed out before, we should not confuse scales and POVs.

From the POV of chemistry and biology -- yes, we are an elaborate compound of chemicals. But when we take the POV of chemistry and biology -- do we see such things as social groups, ego, tolerance, religion, science, ...? No. These things are seen when we observe the human from the POV of sociology, religion, ...

I am emphasizing that there are *different ways* to look at one and the same thing. And these ways of looking only provide a description of the thing in question from their own POV.
Eg., from the POV of sociology, humans are social beings who need social interaction. From the POV of neurology, humans are a complex system of organs and chemical reactions. From the POV of Christianity, humans are children of God ... etc. etc. (I'm not sure these are the exact definitions that prevail today, I'm just exemplifying).

So, in the end, it is up to us and our inner value system how we will see, understand and value ourselves. In the end, we are left with our ever so ellusive and indefinable human heart.

 

[water]

There is only 1 sphere IMO: the universe. I don't see any context within the universe where we could have free will I'm afraid.

I would like you to go to the library, take "The Meditations" by Rene Descartes. (You know that Descartes was downright brutal in being logically consequent, right?) Hopefully, you will land a book where the editor wrote something like this in the preface:
Of course, Descartes was fascinated by systems. He was corresponding with Chanute on these matters. But there, Descartes rounded up his thinking into a conclusion that should be our constant memento:
"But here, I must think that I am a human."

Fancy theories are one thing, but they don't really make your life. We should always be able to distance ourselves from our philosophical theories, and find the meaning of life ...
(I couldn't resist. I don't mean to make light. I am dead serious. Anyone who goes on thinking in strict scientific terms ends up being a dead aesthete.)

No, u think u have free will. U really have to get a grip on the differences between whats out there and apparition. (e.g. it appears that each species is adapted and shaped towards its environment but say that to a biologist and he will hit u!). Adaptation, from a creationists point of view is an apparition and not the underlying process.

Of course I think that I have free will! Of course it technically is an apparition.
I think I have a very good grip on what is really out there and what is an apparition.

What *is* out there? The best answer I can come up with is: energy, chemical reactions. But so far, that energy, those chemical reactions bear no *meaning*. While humans are such creatures that insist on some sort of meaning -- this is what makes us human.

 

[water]

I have always belived that freewill is the ability to have control in what one chooses to do. It is not only about the number of things that are possible. Forexample, a kid has 5 textbooks in his bag. One for each subject. He is really in the mood for geography today and if he had free will he would take that book out and read it. He has a lot of choices of book to read from but he doesn't have free will coz the teacher comes in and forces him to open a different book.

This is what goes on in a universe without the presence of "super-nature" or God.

Yes. And guess what: You can never be sure. Hence free will.
[THE illusion]


Also, as pointed out before, free will appears only in a certain context. Fact is that we cannot live outside of context. We are bound into certain social etc. patterns. But within each context, we do have some free will.
That kid with the teacher forcing him to take a certain book: he still has the free will to control his response. He can be angry about not being able to read the book he first wanted to. Or he can ponder the opportunity costs, and decide whether it is better for him to leave the class, and eventually have troubles finishing school ( >> and then having troubles getting a job and earning enough money to afford things he wishes) -- or whether it is better for him to calm down, sit through the class and learn as much as possible there, so that he'll have more spare time to do the things he really wants (>> and eventually get a better job ...).

In a short-term perspective, our free will seems to be extremely limited. But once we ponder the opportunity costs of certain decisions and see things in long-term perspective, we realize that we have a lot of free will, and most of all, responsibility. But along with it: the chance to do what we want.

 

[invert_nexus]

Nexus, possibily you may recall the interview and study of a woman who had split brain surgery. I recall her saying something quite incredible:
"When I went to select a pair of shorts to wear, my brain chose two instead of one." or something to that effect.
I recall feeling amazed that she experienced a conflict between the two halves of her brain ( as this they felt was the cause). She says that her left side wanted a different pair of shorts to her right brain.

Care to comment?

I've never heard that. I find it odd that she felt two ways about it. From what I've seen on the subject the other half of the brain is wholly removed from conscious awareness. I suppose perhaps she was adept at construing right brain terminology? Except how would she be able to articulate that into words with her hemispheres seperated?

I would in this case use the example of a person who has had an arm amputated. Does this limit his ability to excersise free will? The lack of an arm limits his choices but does it limit his freewill?

Does Toms disability limit his choices? I would think the anwser is yes. Does he still have freedom to choose from the choices his mind allows him? I think the answer would be yes.

I have been trying to come up with a good way of extending the analogy, but haven't come up with anything yet. I've been splitting my attention to too many interests today, I'm afraid. It all comes down to the question "What is self?" In the example of a mentally deranged Tom who had a paranoid fear of persecution, that fear is self-imposed. Even though the self that imposes it is not necessarily "Tom". The small portion of the mind that is Tom is merely the socialization aspect of his self. To a large extent, language and thought are all derived from social contexts. Without a social unit, these parts of you begin to atrophy and shut down. It takes great effort to keep them alive, if not healthy. The mind will conjure imaginary social partners to converse with. And yet, all these constructs would be merely another aspect of the same self.

Basically, I used Tom as an extreme example of the strangeness that can be caused by the invisible self. There are other examples that we all share on a day to day basis that are accepted as sane. They are part of the human condition. Unfortunately, this is where my lack of an extended example comes in and I shall have to ponder the matter further.

And, also, in your example of a Tom with an amputated arm limiting the things which he might be able to will himself to do, it would be closer to my example if Tom cut off his own arm. He exercised his free will in order to limit the choices available for his will to act upon. And many handicapped people would jump in and tell you that while it may not be easy for an amputee victim to perform as before, with a strong enough will any limitation can be overcome.

 

[invert_nexus]

I see u are using a different definition of freewill QQ. U believe it is mainly to do with choice whereas I believe it is about control.

I would think that it has more to with control rather than choice myself. In fact, it could be said that the less choice you have the more free will. A larger ability to take advantage of the choices at hand. In fact, I recall reading an article recently about amount of choices and human happiness. I don't recall the specifics and am sure that I would confuse the issue if I posted what I think it might have said. I'll try to find the article and come back to this.

How I would break down free will is that it is ability to say I am going to this and then to do it. Or, at least attempt to do it. Even if prevented by some means, even the attempt is free will. Free will has no guarantee of being carried out. To attempt to carry free will to that extent would be to cover the actions of others with your self will. Thy will be done... That's another type of will altogether. I do see choice as part of the equation though, but in a lesser role to control. Now that I think about it, it's interesting to consider the different POV's between a choice vs control debate.

So, in the end, it is up to us and our inner value system how we will see, understand and value ourselves. In the end, we are left with our ever so ellusive and indefinable human heart.

I agree with what you say about POV. But as you say, it is up to us and our inner value systems... Without the built-in ability to rationalize the actions of our bodies, our POV might be a very different thing indeed. And you even use the key words "elusive and indefinable human heart." The heart or the emotional part of our brains is another part of our brain altogether than what I've mentioned so far. It's the ancient reptile brain in the center of our brains, isn't it?

"We" are much more complex than just being ourselves, even more than left brain/right brain. The brain is a conglomeration of different parts that each contribute it's own "voice" to the mob. Even outside the brain, I'm sure that nerve bundles lend a voice. And now there's speculation on the function of glial cells in the network. They had been discounted thus far as mere maintenence position, bringing in nutrients and warding pathogens and such. Turns out they have their own network above the regular nerve cells. They have control over the synapses of neurons. Through their network they decide which connections to allow. That's a whole 'nother brain in there. We're a busy little community inside and "we" are just a small part of that whole, perhaps the least important part... (physically speaking anyway.)

"Thinking" is expensive. Being "us" is the least efficient part of the thought process. It's been shown that as we learn things, our minds automatically attempt to sublimate the doing of the thing. We do it so much that "we could do it in our sleep." Automatic reflexive action is far cheaper than concentration and reflection.

This "doing it in our sleep" brings up another issue. This further shows the compartmentalization that goes on inside our minds. Have you ever tried to teach someone a complex task that you've done so much that you can do it in your sleep? Have you finally grown frustrated attempting to explain how to it, to express this sublimated action into words, and finally have to "show" them how to do it? You have to let your hands do the talking. Now, when you are "doing things in your sleep" and not concentrating on it by trying to explain it, who's in charge. Who's doing it? You or your hands?


And, as if we needed it, a further complexity is added when causality in the brain is studied. It seems that signals within the brain don't alway go from a to b, etc... At times, seperate areas of the brain will fire up at the same time or even in reverse (to the expected order). This is old news, I think it's possible that some of this might be explained by the glial cell network. But interesting still.

I believe it was you, Rosa, who posted in a language thread somewhere about babies speaking backwards and how our brains actually learn how to "reverse" this babyspeak into adult speak. Our eyes see things upside down and we must reverse them in our minds to the "correct" position. Dyslexia is another example of this type of the brain "correcting" reality. And there is also a lot of "filling in" going on. We don't always "see" everything in our field of vision. Much of it is merely seen around the edges and highlights and the rest is filled in. A digital compression, so to speak.

I could probably go on and on in this vein for quite some time. But, I should probably stop before I start rambling if I haven't already. I'll leave it at this, we are complex creatures who know very little of the intricacies of our inner nature. It would be interesting to study "language" that could allow these hidden parts of ourselves to have a voice. A true language of communication between the selves, not just art and the like, which is in many ways subconscious; but someway to truly bring our selves to consciousness. Maybe if we could find a way to do that then our hidden selves wouldn't be so vicious in these instances where they are cut off of from what little control "we" do have over them.

 

[John Connellan]

Also, as pointed out before, free will appears only in a certain context. Fact is that we cannot live outside of context. We are bound into certain social etc. patterns. But within each context, we do have some free will.
That kid with the teacher forcing him to take a certain book: he still has the free will to control his response. He can be angry about not being able to read the book he first wanted to. Or he can ponder the opportunity costs, and decide whether it is better for him to leave the class, and eventually have troubles finishing school ( >> and then having troubles getting a job and earning enough money to afford things he wishes) -- or whether it is better for him to calm down, sit through the class and learn as much as possible there, so that he'll have more spare time to do the things he really wants (>> and eventually get a better job ...).

In a short-term perspective, our free will seems to be extremely limited. But once we ponder the opportunity costs of certain decisions and see things in long-term perspective, we realize that we have a lot of free will, and most of all, responsibility. But along with it: the chance to do what we want.

Rosa, I don't think u are understanding the fundamentality of this concept of no free will. Obviously, I have given an analogy of student and teacher to show how it is possible for there to be choices but no free will. This is fundamental and is related to the behaviour of sub-atomic particles. U cannot just take my analogy and try to explain something else out of it!
U are saying that he has control over whether he becomes angry or not. This IMO, is wrong. It is a mixture of fundamentally random process at quantum level and then determinism at our level. In other words there is no other emotion he could have elicited at that time than the one which he displayed!

I am sure u have thought of determinism before. For the moment (leaving QM aside), just think of the universe as being composed of particles all of which have their own energies and motion (and direction of motion) etc. Now, there are so many particles that we will never be able to predict the "behaviour" of even a tiny fraction of these (let alone a comples ordered system like a human being!). This does not mean that what was set out in the beginning is not running the way it was meant to run from the very start!
Our behaviour is composed of so many particle choices and is so complex that it appears (even to us) that what we do is our own control but in fact according to science it can't be (unless u invoke God of course).

Thats all

 

[invert_nexus]

As if the biological processes weren't complicated enough, you bring in the quantum mechanics involved.

I read a book called Star Wave a long time ago about possible quantum mechanics involved in the brain. Ever heard of it? I hardly remember what it said, but it was interesting. It talked about how the electrons in the fluid of the brain might act as quantum computers. Something about the quantom wave function aligning the electrons to the proper state for whatever thought is happening at the time. It also talked about holographic thought. I should probably stay away from this subject lest I embarass myself.

 

[Quantum Quack]

so guys...does improvisation fit in to this picture you are painting?

 

[water]

Rosa, I don't think u are understanding the fundamentality of this concept of no free will. ...

I don't think you see what I am trying to do: I am trying to say that the scientific explanation is one possible explanation, and that without an external evaluation, science is useless.
So I was trying to see the value of the scientific explanation from the perspective of simple everyday life.

***

It's the ancient reptile brain in the center of our brains, isn't it?

What, did Gendanken feed that into your mind?!

Automatic reflexive action is far cheaper than concentration and reflection.
/.../
Have you finally grown frustrated attempting to explain how to it, to express this sublimated action into words, and finally have to "show" them how to do it? You have to let your hands do the talking. Now, when you are "doing things in your sleep" and not concentrating on it by trying to explain it, who's in charge. Who's doing it? You or your hands?

"Your mind will never be as wise as your hands," said Bagger Vance.

You are in charge -- maybe you are not aware of it -- but eventually, it is you doing what is being done, not somebody else (unless you envoke demons etc.).

Let's take a look at the definition of intelligence in Russells's "The Brain Book" (I'm translating back into English, so the original may differ a bit):

In the broadest sense of the word, intelligence can be specified as
-- the ability to form instinctive knowledge on the basis of previous experiences;
-- the ability to recognize common elements in situations that at first glance have nothing in common;
-- the ability to use this knowledge in new situations.

What does this description say? That we learn something, and this can become an instinct: we are not aware of it anymore.
At some point, a certain knowledge was acquired consciously, but then, it "settled", and we are not aware of it anymore -- but we can very well use it.

 

[water]

so guys...does improvisation fit in to this picture you are painting?

Look at Russell's description of intelligence -- think of improvisation -- and you can draw conclusions yourself.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Personally I feel the issue of the physics of free will is one that will never reach a conclusion. Which is why I guess I wanted to discuss how we take what options we have and improvise to the best of our ability, thus securing the best result we can to serve our own self interests.

Impovisation, that is to apply our creativity to our situation with the knowledge we possess, I feel is essential to our successful attempt at living.

It could be argued that it is our abilty to improvise that is our ability to excercise our freewill.
An example that may help describe my point is :

We have in front of us 6 blocks of wood. All are different colours and shapes.

What do we do with these blocks of wood? What can we construct given the limitations of our choices. Some may build a house, some may build an abstraction of a tree, some may simply just be happy with one block and discard the other 5, some may be happy to do nothing and reject the whole excercise.
So in a way free will, in this context is only limited or goverened by our imaginations, and this I might add seems an apt way to describe it, if a description is at all necessary.

another
you are at a train station, one train going the long way home and another going the short way home, many choices, are available. So we improvise based on these choices. How we feel, what our priorities are, who we are with and who we may want to be with, who we are and who we may want to be. Every moment so much choice and it is how we improvise that determines our slef success.

Any way ......this is just another improvisation........