Freewill - an act of improvisation?

[Quantum Quack]

A thought occurred, as they often do, whilst I was singing whilst taking a shower.

"Is freewill , in the main an act of improvisation?" I thought as I sung total gibberish to the sound of cascading water.

Do we take every moment and imporvise in that moment? Is life a continuous state of Ad LIb,,,,( musical term).

When I listen to a Jaz, Blues singer and their improvisation over a structure, whether it be a Bass and percusion structure, I see certain parallels to life in general.

Determinable structure of our lives which we improvise "over the top" with.

It has often been the subject of much poetry and philosophy that every one lives to their own tune and their own rhythm.

Is this just showing us that we are constantly improvising on the structure provided.?

 

[water]

It is all about

PRESENTATION!​

Is this just showing us that we are constantly improvising on the structure provided.?

Yes, I mainly agree with that. We can say that we have certain internal principles ("structure provided"), and on the basis of that we generate our behaviour and thinking in each situation. However, these internal principles can be recognized, and changed.
The terms "structure provided" may be a bit misleading, as it implies that this "thing inside us" is fixed and unchangeable, pre-set.

 

[Quantum Quack]

actually Rosa in referring to structure provided I was more concerned with that which is external, like roads, buildings, technology, people ( location of ) etc etc.

A shopping centre for example has much structure which we as people have to navigate and conform to, however Improvisation allows us to excersise our freewill whilst conforming in part to that structure.

Maybe you would care to explain your beautiful big and bold and very pink statement "Presentation"

 

[Quantum Quack]

oops ...it was pink and now it's red.....

 

[water]

actually Rosa in referring to structure provided I was more concerned with that which is external, like roads, buildings, technology, people ( location of ) etc etc.

A shopping centre for example has much structure which we as people have to navigate and conform to, however Improvisation allows us to excersise our freewill whilst conforming in part to that structure.

In this case, we're talking about what is called "schemes" and "scripts" in semantic studies. Cognitive semantics, as far as I know, says that we have a kind of abstract images of how certain common processes go: like we have a script called "a visit to the dentist", or another one called "having dinner at a restaurant" etc.
When in a certain situation, we act in accordance with the script we have acquired over the years.

Of course, not each real life situation fits into the idealized script -- this is where we must be flexible and creative, act out our "free will". Say that I go to the bank, follow my script "going to the bank to withdraw money" -- but then a robbery happens. What do I do? Do I act according to my script and proceed with my transactions? No, I don't. I do what the robber with the gun tells me. This is a more extreme example; but we see ourselves acting on preset scripts and adjusting them to the present situation all the time:
"I remebered something I could tell QQ. But I am on the bus, I can't go online and post him. I'll take my notepad and write the thought down, so that I don't forget it, and post it later when I come home."

Maybe you would care to explain your beautiful big and bold and very pink statement "Presentation"

Yah, it is about presentation, alright (that's why I was editing it so much!).
I see now that by "Is freewill , in the main an act of improvisation?" you may not have meant the same thing I did.

I was thinking that once it comes to improvisation, one of the main principles is to make a !presentation!. The way we present ourselves is what others get to see, our effectivity depends on how we present ourselves.

If someone chooses a screen name like "TotalSlut" -- well, would you like to correspond with them? Or if someone, in their posts, keeps on saying "Oh, but what do I know, never mind me" -- it does not invite to further communication. It is bad presentation.

And in the air of this, I was thinking that free will is also a matter of presentation: if someone presents oneself as having free will, others will think that this person has free will -- and free will is something desirable in our society.

I mean, one may think that one has free will, but unless one acts on it and shows it -- it is hard to think that this person has free will.

To successfully present oneself as having free will, to be an *I*, quite an amount of creativity and flexibility is needed -- to act accordingly in each situation.

And to act accordingly in each situation is basically improvisation on given scripts, don't you think?

 

[Quantum Quack]

I do see your point Rosa, about preset scripts that we have become comfortable. Suggesting certain routines of behaviour given certain circumstances,. You have added another dimension to what I call structure. So we have our external structures and our internal ones.

I guess I am suggesting that we are improvising, or creating every moment with these structures in mind. Most of the time our creativity is relativily mundane and predictable ( to a point) but sometimes we are suprisingly innovative in our improvisations.

It's a bit like saying 90% of what we do is conforming to structure and 10% is improvisation based on that structure.

 

[John Connellan]

I think u are assuming free will exists with that question there QQ!

If u don't believe in the super natural (i.e. anything external to our universe) then free will does not exist. We are a part of the universe so everything we do is already set out before us (unless the universe is inherently random).
If it is, then we still do not have freewill because the basis of our actions is then random (and not decided by us)

 

[water]

If u don't believe in the super natural (i.e. anything external to our universe) then free will does not exist. We are a part of the universe so everything we do is already set out before us (unless the universe is inherently random).
If it is, then we still do not have freewill because the basis of our actions is then random (and not decided by us)

It may very well be true that everything we do is random and not decided by us.

But there is a little trick hiding in this: It seems to be a fact that we do not know everything. And it is this lack of an absolute knowledge that makes us think that we do have free will.

We (well, many of us) consider this lack of absolute knowledge to be true. And when we accept and believe that, we keep finding ourselves in situations where we simply have to act as we see fit -- we simply have to act on our free will.

If lack of absolute knowledge is true, then free will is true too.

Even though both may be just our mental constructs: we act on these constructs, and this makes them real and true.

 

[John Connellan]

It may very well be true that everything we do is random and not decided by us.

Yes this is one option. The only other one is that everything we do is predetermined (if u do not believe in the supernatural).

But there is a little trick hiding in this: It seems to be a fact that we do not know everything. And it is this lack of an absolute knowledge that makes us think that we do have free will.

Precisely.

We (well, many of us) consider this lack of absolute knowledge to be true.

I would hope everyone believes this. if u can find one person who doesn't then bring them to me

And when we accept and believe that

Its not a matter of belief and we have to accept it.

we keep finding ourselves in situations where we simply have to act as we see fit -- we simply have to act on our free will.

We don't have free will in this case

If lack of absolute knowledge is true, then free will is true too.

Thats not free will, its apparent free will when in fact there is none

Even though both may be just our mental constructs: we act on these constructs, and this makes them real and true.

It makes it real for us even though we are deluding ourselves!

 

[water]

Its not a matter of belief and we have to accept it.

It is a matter of belief, in the sense that we give his lack of absolute knowledge a certain value. Esp. strictly religious people and other fundamentalists do believe that they can know everything -- through prayer, they say they can communicate with God, and God is allknowing, and God can then give them proper advice.

If you are not a fundamentalist, at some point, you do have to *consciously* admit that you do not know everything and that it is impossible to know everything.

As for acceptance: Whever you see someone swearing and cursing over something that didn't go his way -- you see someone who thought he knew it all. Those who persist in such swearings, show that they are refusing to accept that they couldn't have known for sure how things would work out.
Acceptance has to do both with reason and emotions -- evaluation.

“ we keep finding ourselves in situations where we simply have to act as we see fit -- we simply have to act on our free will. ”

We don't have free will in this case

Sub specie aeternitatis, on the grand scale, we most likely do not have free will, surely. But, as it is, we usually don't see ourselves from the POV of this grand scale.

Thats not free will, its apparent free will when in fact there is none

The apparition IS real: it *is* an *apparition*.

It makes it real for us even though we are deluding ourselves!

Yes, but same goes for everything else: either we say that everything is a delusion, and disqualify it as such, even ourselves -- or we say that even though it may be a delusion, to us, it is real, and that makes it real, and valuable.

It would be sheer suicide to always think of oneself sub specie aeternitatis, as in this perspective, one's life has no value (unless you envoke a God).

 

[John Connellan]

It is a matter of belief, in the sense that we give his lack of absolute knowledge a certain value. Esp. strictly religious people and other fundamentalists do believe that they can know everything -- through prayer, they say they can communicate with God, and God is allknowing, and God can then give them proper advice.

If you are not a fundamentalist, at some point, you do have to *consciously* admit that you do not know everything and that it is impossible to know everything.

No. I can guarantee that no religious pereson will claim to know everything. For to do so would imply that they are God.

As for acceptance: Whever you see someone swearing and cursing over something that didn't go his way -- you see someone who thought he knew it all. Those who persist in such swearings, show that they are refusing to accept that they couldn't have known for sure how things would work out.
Acceptance has to do both with reason and emotions -- evaluation.

These people will think they know a certain situation but again nobody can claim to know everything.

Sub specie aeternitatis, on the grand scale, we most likely do not have free will, surely. But, as it is, we usually don't see ourselves from the POV of this grand scale.

True, like I said, day to day activities seem like free will but when u think about it (not so much on a grander scale but on a much smaller scale) it is either determined or random.

The apparition IS real: it *is* an *apparition*.

The apparition is real, free will is not real.

Yes, but same goes for everything else: either we say that everything is a delusion, and disqualify it as such, even ourselves -- or we say that even though it may be a delusion, to us, it is real, and that makes it real, and valuable.

Not every thing is a delusion. free will is a concept and we either have it or not. I am arguing that we don't (in this special case)

It would be sheer suicide to always think of oneself sub specie aeternitatis, as in this perspective, one's life has no value (unless you envoke a God).

 

[Quantum Quack]

No. I can guarantee that no religious pereson will claim to know everything. For to do so would imply that they are God.

reminds me of a not so famour quote of mine...."it would take eternity to know eternity"

Sort of like everything can be known but it would take eternity to do so and then one hell of a memory to retain what you know or have come to realise.

When dealing with absoltue concepts such as "knowing everything" then the infinite is invoked thus infinite time (eternity) is also.....and well we know where this bit of circular logic gets us......Ha

 

[water]

No. I can guarantee that no religious pereson will claim to know everything. For to do so would imply that they are God.

I said:

Esp. strictly religious people and other fundamentalists do believe that they can know everything -- through prayer, they say they can communicate with God, and God is allknowing, and God can then give them proper advice.

Some religious people believe that they have *access* to absolute knowledge, and thereby they believe to have potential absolute knowledge, I didn't say that they believe to have absolute knowledge.

 

[John Connellan]

Some religious people believe that they have *access* to absolute knowledge, and thereby they believe to have potential absolute knowledge, I didn't say that they believe to have absolute knowledge.

If u didn't say they believe to have absolute knowledge then why did u say this:

We (well, many of us) consider this lack of absolute knowledge to be true.

Why only "many" of us? Believe me, there is nobody (who is mentally sane) that believes anybody has absolute knowledge. Nothing in our universe can have absolute knowledge.

Anyway the moral of the story is, like I have said, there can be no such thing as free will in a non-supernatural universe

 

[water]

Why only "many" of us? Believe me, there is nobody (who is mentally sane) that believes anybody has absolute knowledge.

And here's the rub: *mentally sane*. There are people who aren't mentally sane ...
What the exact criteria for mental sanity are -- I wouldn't really know. I therefore rather use words like "many" and "some".

Anyway the moral of the story is, like I have said, there can be no such thing as free will in a non-supernatural universe

And the moral of my story is that it is suicidal to live the everyday life as if one really has no free will.
I am not opposing you; I only think things must be kept in perspective.

 

[John Connellan]

And the moral of my story is that it is suicidal to live the everyday life as if one really has no free will.
I am not opposing you; I only think things must be kept in perspective.

Eh.....I think u are opposing me Rosa! One "really" DOESN'T have free will! Isn't that just what we've been arguing?
And BTW, how do u live your everyday life as if u really had no free will? Is my life wrong? What should I be doing Rosa?

 

[Quantum Quack]

possibly we need to define the object of discussion a little more?
What is dis ting called freewill?

Is it some sort of reactionary auto response unit built into these diabolical carbon built entities called human?

Or is it a sense of freedom that we get when we have greater choice and awareness of choice?

Some times I get the impresion that when we talk of freewill we are talking about some sort of machine.

Freewill can exist in a universe of cause and effect. Even though it seems that the popular definition is in conflict with cause and effect. Well, my answer to this is change the definition.

 

[water]

possibly we need to define the object of discussion a little more?
What is dis ting called freewill?

Is it some sort of reactionary auto response unit built into these diabolical carbon built entities called human?

Or is it a sense of freedom that we get when we have greater choice and awareness of choice?

Some times I get the impresion that when we talk of freewill we are talking about some sort of machine.

Freewill can exist in a universe of cause and effect. Even though it seems that the popular definition is in conflict with cause and effect. Well, my answer to this is change the definition.

Good call, QQ.

What exactly free will is -- depends on whether we first acknowledge whether there is something like free will in the first place, but ...

I know -- it's a messed up logic, but it crucially points at issues of conceptualization.

In order to say what something is, one must first know whether that is.
But to answer whether that is, one must answer what it is ...

I think that in the end, it works a bit like that: Whether something is goes along with our cognizance of what it is, and vice versa.
Both processes take place at the same time.

If there is a word, we assume there is a meaning to it.

The term "free will" exists -- so there most likely is some meaning to it.

Let's see what that could be ...

 

[water]

Eh.....I think u are opposing me Rosa! One "really" DOESN'T have free will! Isn't that just what we've been arguing?

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

And BTW, how do u live your everyday life as if u really had no free will?

I think that in my everyday life I have some free will, therefore in my everyday life I have some free will. What that free will is, I see through my everday actions.

Is my life wrong?

I wouldn't know that.

What should I be doing Rosa?

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

 

[invert_nexus]

By god, just when I was thinking of free will here's a free will thread. And it even contains the keyword improvisation.

Do we take every moment and imporvise in that moment? Is life a continuous state of Ad LIb,,,,( musical term).

What if it's even more improvisational than that. What if the body acts of it's own accord and "we" the social aspect of our mind merely improvise a storyline that complements it. Of course, there are certainly sometimes that one can definitely say, "I will my arm to move and it moves." 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. The tension in the clinical setting might certainly skew the results, the awaiting of the command. But it's certainly interesting.

There are also, (as I've mentioned a few times in other posts) those strange split brain effects. Of the phantom limb that opposes "your" will. That actively seeks to undo the things that "you" are so diligently trying to do. The body is run by a dual-hemisphere brain, each of which house a seperate mind. The "you" is the logical speaking portion. The other side doesn't have the benefit of language to explain it's actions, but it exists and exerts control nonetheless. In fact, as the "you" is so diligently rationalizing the effects of this other mind, it may be even more dominant in will.

And here's the rub: *mentally sane*. There are people who aren't mentally sane ...

Perhaps none of us are entirely "mentally sane". It takes some form of insanity to shift reality to the extent that it seems we do. And how is one to judge the sanity of the unspeaking half of your mind? It's not the logical half, there are sure to be chaotic and "insane" connotations to having no logic. And imagine how it must feel. Locked away and denied a voice, perhaps even the idea of a voice. I wonder what it makes of the strange logical thought patterns of it's twin. What little feeds back through the corpus callosum (is that the right word? This is what is severed in the split brain studies.)


Edit: BTW, this improvisation after the fact is thought to be how dreams are formed. In sleep the right half of the brain is king and dumping odd images and emotions. The left half desperately grabs onto these images and shuffles them into a makeshift faerie tale that entertains us while we slumber.