Freewill - an act of improvisation?

[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 how we feel at the time, 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 self success.

Any way ......this is just another improvisation based on what I have read so far and what I thought since the day I was conceived.

 

[Jenyar]

Schopenhauer said "A man can surely do what he wills to do, but cannot determine what he wills."

The concept of "Free will" already assumes a few limitations or "ground rules" - such as that we are limited to our ability to think. If you were free not to think, then you would be doing things only instinctively, which is just reactionary behaviour, and not free at all.

I'm not sure what I said above, but I think I'll call it "unfreedom".

 

[water]

If you were free not to think ...

Is it possible to stop thinking without falling asleep?


*Pop quiz: Which film is this from?

 

[John Connellan]

I will reply to all these on monday guys. Theres a lot I want to say (particularly to Rosa and QQ) so get ready . Have a good weekend guys

 

[water]

I will reply to all these on monday guys. Theres a lot I want to say (particularly to Rosa and QQ) so get ready . Have a good weekend guys

I can hardly wait ...

 

[invert_nexus]

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

I think improvisation is at the heart of the biological perspective. The quantum perspective might be somewhat different, the quantum world is a strange one. I'd better let Johns speak about that.

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.

I can understand that, but there is something to be said of the perception of choices as well. We only see those options that we are allowed to see. Sometimes we see more options than actually exist.

By the way, I found that article. It talks about how choice affects happiness and satisfaction. One would think that the more choices we have the better, but this is not the case. We are unhappy with no choices and gain happiness with added choices, but there comes a point when the perceived gain is outweighed by the perceived loss inherent in choices, in choosing one over the other. Every time you make a choice, you are weighing the options, the pros and cons of the various options. Once the choice is made, many people will still continue worrying that they made the wrong choice, that they were ripped off, that they should have chosen the other one. The satisfaction we gain is not as strong or as longlasting as the regret.

It also showed that when applying a value to something, we place a lower value on things when they are compared against a group of like items. A copy of time magazine was given a higher value when compared against unrelated items, like a vacation trip, or a food item. But was valued lower when compared against other magazines. The perceived loss that may arise from the wrong choice devalues it.

What does this have to do with free will, you ask? Well, the value that we place upon the various choices presented to us decides the issue for us (at the least heavily leans the decision one way or the other.) For instance, in the article they offered people $1.50 to fill out a questionaire. At the end, they then offered them a nice metal pen that costs $2. 75% of those given this option took it. Another group was also offered the pen, they were also offered two cheaper felt-tip pens (valued at about $1 each). In this group, fewer than 50% chose any of the pens, rather they took the money. The availability of choices devalued those choices.

What, did Gendanken feed that into your mind?!

What, is Gendanken the only one around here that's heard of this? The emotions are regulated by the inner parts of our brain, those parts we inherited from our reptile ancenstry. I tend to believe that the right brain has more influence on this portion of our brain than our left brain does, but I could be wrong on that. Perhaps they both have an equal ability to spur the emotions on.

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.).

But, that's just it. Who is "you?" There is much more going on than just conscious manipulation of the environment. "You" just take credit for all the things that you do. In these split-brain studies, the other half of the mind could certainly be called a demon in some cases. Mean, nasty-tempered, malicious creatures.

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.

Yes, but who is "we"? You're taking credit for the unspoken parts of the mind. Take art for example. There are times when an artist goes to the canvas and wills himself to draw a masterful painting. Unfortunately, this painting doesn't always materialize. The other parts of the brain don't bend to our wills. They merely acquiesce every now and again, possibly for reasons entirely their own. And when this happens we say "Look what I've done. I'm an artist." It's no wonder that when freed our hidden selves can be so vicious.

Schopenhauer said "A man can surely do what he wills to do, but cannot determine what he wills."

The concept of "Free will" already assumes a few limitations or "ground rules" - such as that we are limited to our ability to think. If you were free not to think, then you would be doing things only instinctively, which is just reactionary behaviour, and not free at all.

Yes, exactly. We, our "thinking", is a social creature. And in some cases can be eradicated and the being may continue to exist. Living in an instinctive, reactive haze. These cases, of course, are rare. Very rare, but it does happen. Ever seen "Awakenings"? The "zombies" of haiti are another example. There are also other states of catatonia that would fit this description. I wonder if we were closer to our roots and the instincts were stronger, if these people would still have enough instincts to function in a small way rather than catatonia.

Is it possible to stop thinking without falling asleep?

It's called meditation. I have never been able to achieve this state. I find it very difficult to shut off the stream of consciousness. I even fall to sleep with my brain still rambling away and when I awake it is still rambling away. I have difficulty going to sleep in case you hadn't guessed.

Theres a lot I want to say (particularly to Rosa and QQ) so get ready.

My comments are not thought-provoking enough...? Or maybe it's just that my views synch with yours in many ways? I would like to hear if you've ever heard of the star wave theory. I wish I could remember the author. I guess I could do a web search.

 

[water]

The satisfaction we gain is not as strong or as longlasting as the regret.

A lot depends on the personality of the person, and their emotional intelligence.

What, is Gendanken the only one around here that's heard of this? /.../

No, I don't think so. But the way she terms it "reptilian brain" is somehow ... Gendankenish.

But, that's just it. Who is "you?" There is much more going on than just conscious manipulation of the environment. "You" just take credit for all the things that you do.

Who else should take the credit then?

In these split-brain studies, the other half of the mind could certainly be called a demon in some cases. Mean, nasty-tempered, malicious creatures.

Only choosy, prejudiced and vain people say that "someone else" "guided their thoughts and hands". People who are afraid of themselves and of what they could do, so they call that part of themselves "demons", and say "it is soembody else".

Yes, but who is "we"? You're taking credit for the unspoken parts of the mind.

What, are the "unspoken parts of the mind" any less you?!
We: it is all we are; the conscious, subconscious, unconscious (terminology depends on each respective theory).
The way your stomach works is you just as well as your mind when calculating a math equation is you. Just because we don't have names for certain aspects of us, doesn't mean that these aspects aren't there or that they aren't us.

The other parts of the brain don't bend to our wills.

Depends on whether one is a master, a student -- or a dilettant.

It's no wonder that when freed our hidden selves can be so vicious.

They become viscious because we value them so little. The curse of modern society.

Yes, exactly. We, our "thinking", is a social creature. And in some cases can be eradicated and the being may continue to exist. Living in an instinctive, reactive haze. These cases, of course, are rare. Very rare, but it does happen. Ever seen "Awakenings"?

I don't think "Awakenings" is a good example for what you are saying. The man had a brain malfunction. We cannot just assume that when someone has a certain brain malfunction, his "purely instinctive side" will show. The man played by DeNiro was a vegetable when ill, unable to live. That "purely instinctive, reactive side" cannot live by itself -- in nature, he'd die.
Which indicates that in order to be a *viable* self, we need all the known -- and the unknown.

It's called meditation.

I think it can be even simpler than that. When you give yourself to the joys of playing basketball -- are you aware of your own thinking? Or when you make love? You give yourself to the moment -- you are not aware of yourself. I guess, one isn't really thinking then.
Usually when we talk about thinking, this also implies that one is aware that one thinks. If one is not aware of one's own thinking ... I guess one doesn't think then.

I have difficulty going to sleep in case you hadn't guessed.

In that case, you must be given a dream, insominac.

 

[invert_nexus]

A lot depends on the personality of the person, and their emotional intelligence.

Yes, sorry, I should have mentioned that as well. They came up with a test that divided people into Maximizers and Satisficers (yes, that's spelled correctly). The Maximizers are the one's who will examine every choice and spend a lot of time weighing their options. Satisficers are people who are more apt to just go out and pick up the first thing that suits their needs and get on with it. The maximizers were more prone to the negative effects of regret and worry. The satisficers didn't care much.

No, I don't think so. But the way she terms it "reptilian brain" is somehow ... Gendankenish.

Embrace your reptile nature, Rosa. Reptiles need love too.

Who else should take the credit then?

Only choosy, prejudiced and vain people say that "someone else" "guided their thoughts and hands". People who are afraid of themselves and of what they could do, so they call that part of themselves "demons", and say "it is soembody else".

What, are the "unspoken parts of the mind" any less you?!

Of course they're you. But not "you." There is a distinction there that I don't think you're prepared to make. If they were really "you" then your will would encompass their actions. It doesn't work that way. You say it "depends on whether one is a master, a student -- or a dilettant." But even masters get blocked sometimes. They might be able to "produce" but the true masterpiece remains elusive until the "muse" strikes. It is a force that is outside of your control. You can feed it, you can encourage it, you can cajole it, but in the end it does what it will. You're just along for the ride.

They become viscious because we value them so little. The curse of modern society.

Notice how you so easily call them "they?"

I don't think "Awakenings" is a good example for what you are saying.

Yeah, me neither. But I was running out of steam by that point. That Tom Hanks movie would be better, but it was purely fictional. I'll try to come up with something better.

I think it can be even simpler than that.

Yes, all those times. All the times when the body is performing of it's own accord. You've got me there. It's all the times when you're "doing things in your sleep." In fact, when you start to think in times like that, at least about the matter at hand, you tend to lose your place in the action. You stumble and fall. Consciousness is expensive and inefficient.

In that case, you must be given a dream, insominac.

I dream too much...

 

[water]

Embrace your reptile nature, Rosa. Reptiles need love too.

I embrace my inner kitten!

Of course they're you. But not "you." There is a distinction there that I don't think you're prepared to make. If they were really "you" then your will would encompass their actions. It doesn't work that way. You say it "depends on whether one is a master, a student -- or a dilettant." But even masters get blocked sometimes. They might be able to "produce" but the true masterpiece remains elusive until the "muse" strikes. It is a force that is outside of your control. You can feed it, you can encourage it, you can cajole it, but in the end it does what it will. You're just along for the ride.

That's a way to see it, of course. But I think this viewpoint is too control-centered, unnatural somehow. It's so manly.

Notice how you so easily call them "they?"

Yes. I am a member of Western society, I am bound to call "them" "they".

That Tom Hanks movie would be better, but it was purely fictional.

Which one? Forrest Gump, or perhaps, Castaway?

Consciousness is expensive and inefficient.

Only to an extent. It would be suicidal to give up consciousness.
In the end, it is all a matter of finest balance.

 

[water]

My 1000th post!! Yeepee!

Now watch me change ...

 

[antifreeze]

okay, so the future is set and we don't remember that which has already happened. but isn't the not knowing what gives us our freewill. say you travel a road with twenty thousand forks, and in the future you will arrive at point a. suppose you could choose which path to travel at every fork in the road. would you end up in a different place? :m:

and knowing everything does not imply omnipotence. hence, knowing everything would not make you god. [god in the sense employed here]

There are times when an artist goes to the canvas and wills himself to draw a masterful painting.

the artist can paint something masterfully, but it wouldn't be called a masterful painting because the artist's "heart" just wasn't in it.

 

[invert_nexus]

But I think this viewpoint is too control-centered, unnatural somehow. It's so manly.

And what would be a womanly take on it? That it's all her doing, even though she isn't in complete control of it? To coerce rather than demand? To cajole rather than command? Does a woman's cajoling and coercing her unspoken mind have any better response than a man attempting to do the same?

Which one? Forrest Gump, or perhaps, Castaway?

Castaway. It shows how one's mind is altered through lack of socialization. I wish I knew of some real world examples of this phenomenon.

Only to an extent. It would be suicidal to give up consciousness.
In the end, it is all a matter of finest balance.

Maybe suicidal for us to give up consciousness at our stage of development, but there always remains the possibility that our descendants might lose this ability. There would need to be a slow push into an unconscious state in order for the instincts to rise and become strengthened once more. It is a balance we maintain. The balance between too much intelligence and not enough. Our intelligence may very well end our easy lives and return us to the animal kingdom once more. It's more likely that we wouldn't survive the transition. There are animals better suited for the niches than we.

My 1000th post!! Yeepee!

Now watch me change ...

Congrats, you look so transcendant now.

the artist can paint something masterfully, but it wouldn't be called a masterful painting because the artist's "heart" just wasn't in it.

Exactly my point. Thank you.

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 how we feel at the time, and this I might add seems an apt way to describe it, if a description is at all necessary.

I have a feeling that you don't like the way this thread has turned out, QQ. I'll try to stick with your motif from now on.

So, what you're saying is that as we go through life, we are presented with choices (which we usually have no foreknowledge of) and we must make choices on the fly as we go and this is free will? I guess I'd have to say yes, that is free will.

For instance, with your example of the blocks different people would construct different structures from the original blocks. Some might not build anything at all, they might instead try to taste the blocks or find out what it feels like if you put them down your pants or extract strands of string from your shirt and attempt to hang the blocks from the ceiling. The list is endless, anything could happen and it is your choice what to do with them.

And to extend the model, what if the subject was commanded to build a specific type of structure. Either he could build that structure or do something different. Whatever he chooses will still be by his own free will. Even if he'd rather do something else, because that's not a true statement otherwise he would do something else rather than obey the command.

Let's extend the model to a torture chamber. A man is strapped in a chair with electrodes clamped onto his testicles. The interrogator is attempting to break the man. Let's use the classic Star Trek row of five lights. The interrogator wants him to see four lights rather than five. After a period of torture, the man finally believes (truly believes) that there is only four lights. Is this free will? Uh oh, here we delve once more into the hidden parts of the mind, because it must be they who change reality in this manner. The alteration of the thought processes might be an exercise of imposed will; but once the thoughts are altered is it free will again?

I have examined this thread once again, trying to understand where you wanted to go, and I really don't understand where you're wanting to go with this. I'm sorry if I hijacked the thread. I have added the last example to muddy the waters of improvisation. But otherwise, yes, on that level of reality we improvise the world as we live in it. The best laid plans of mice and men and all that...

 

[Quantum Quack]

Nexus, I am more than happy that the thread exists in the first place. And thread hijacking is a well loved inadvertant pass time here at sciforums....( chuckle )

Personally I find your posts very interesting, and your approach welcoming.

Maybe an understanding of how we can "Improvise" in the way we do might be enlightening.

A combination of learned responses to certain stimuli, including the response of being as unpredictable as possible....a sort of forced randomness.....

For me the act of freewill is defined by our ability to say "No" and reject the choices on offer. For example the ability to kill one selve ( suicide) affords us the ability to reject our existance and by having this ability we are not therefore controlled by existence ( not entirely any way) because in the ultimate wash the mere fact that we choose to exist and not the opposite makes our lives essentially voluntary thus free.

Your approach is to suggest that our autonomic responses have more to do with it than we realise but I may suggest that suicide or the act of such is not autonomic but an act of desparate violition.

A person in a torturers lair being incapacitated so that suicide is impossible has lost every vestige of freewill and would be considered as entirely oppressed.

So to me freewill is defined by the ability to reject choice or say "no", saying "no" being considerably more difficult than saying yes.

And consciously it is the choice of a voluntary existence that rules out any other sub systems that may be at play. Those sub systems being totally dependent on the hosts survival to exist in the first instance. Those sub systems totally beholden to the choice to exist, therefore have no freewill of there own.

 

[water]

Invert Nexus,

And what would be a womanly take on it? That it's all her doing, even though she isn't in complete control of it?

I'll quote you Wes on this one -- and Wes is not a woman ... :

I take responsibility for everything I am involved with. That would be overwhelming if I weren't somewhat irresponsible and emotionally capable of accepting a certain amount of irresponsibility.

Free will has immediately to do with responsibility; it is our responsibility to also accept that we are sometimes irresponsible. But on the whole, we say that we have free will, and are responsible for all our actions.

To coerce rather than demand?

To coerce is cowardice.

To cajole rather than command?

Are you afraid of being charmed by someone?

Does a woman's cajoling and coercing her unspoken mind have any better response than a man attempting to do the same?

We are talking about making theories here, and not about what works best IRL.
Anyone, man *or* woman, can act with great irresponsibility, cowardice, immaturity etc. How we explain someone's actions, how we make a theory, is another thing. We can think "manly", or "womanly", or balanced.

Castaway. It shows how one's mind is altered through lack of socialization. I wish I knew of some real world examples of this phenomenon.

I've started the thread "We need the look of other eyes". Maybe you'd care to post your thoughts there?

Maybe suicidal for us to give up consciousness at our stage of development, but there always remains the possibility that our descendants might lose this ability.

Yah, they're called robots.

Congrats, you look so transcendant now.

I do, huh? Thanks.

 

[water]

Antifreeze,

okay, so the future is set and we don't remember that which has already happened. but isn't the not knowing what gives us our freewill.

Yes, this has been established in the beginning of this thread.

say you travel a road with twenty thousand forks, and in the future you will arrive at point a. suppose you could choose which path to travel at every fork in the road. would you end up in a different place?

Wonderful example, thank you.

and knowing everything does not imply omnipotence. hence, knowing everything would not make you god. [god in the sense employed here]

Good call. Alknowing is not the same as omnipotent. But, actually, we could get ourselves into a debate about this, as these two terms seem to be inseparatly connected.

 

[water]

Upon reading QQ's and Invert's thoughts, this thought occured to me:

Free will -- it applies to 2 things:

-- what we *wish* or *want* to do or think,

-- what we *actually* do or think.


I think this is an important consideration when talking about free will.

 

[Quantum Quack]

actually a very valid point Rosa, and of course you don't need me to say this.

The freedom of thought as distinct to the freedom of action.
Care to expand a little?

 

[water]

The freedom of thought as distinct to the freedom of action.

1. ... how is that ... "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is lazy"? -- this often applies to everyday life.

2. Humans have the ability to think a step ahead, we can conceive the future. It is probably due to that that we are able to perceive the distinction between thought and performed action.

3. We also have the ability to think in terms of "what if ...", another distinction between thought and performed action.

4. Which (I probably skipped some phases in reasoning, I could elaborate) leads me to think that one has the sense of free will when thought/desire and performed action are (felt as) adequate to eachother.

actually a very valid point Rosa, and of course you don't need me to say this.

I may not need it, but I appreciate it.

 

[Quantum Quack]

it's sort of like " you can think what you like, but you can't act or do always like you may want to"

 

[invert_nexus]

Your approach is to suggest that our autonomic responses have more to do with it than we realise but I may suggest that suicide or the act of such is not autonomic but an act of desparate violition.

and

Free will has immediately to do with responsibility;

All the forces of the mind add to the whole, but in the end it is we who must take responsibilty. Perhaps it is the greatest irony that when released the hidden mind can be so violent and hateful, when it should be somewhat grateful for not having to take responsibility. Perhaps that is the actual cause of the violence? Perhaps when freed, the mind cannot cope with the responsibilities dumped in it's "lap".

A person in a torturers lair being incapacitated so that suicide is impossible has lost every vestige of freewill and would be considered as entirely oppressed.

I agree, but what about after he's released? The torturer no longer tortures, but the change in mind continues. Is his new will free will?

Those sub systems being totally dependent on the hosts survival to exist in the first instance. Those sub systems totally beholden to the choice to exist, therefore have no freewill of there own.

Yes, but when they're freed... what madness they are capable of.

To coerce is cowardice.

Why is that? Sometimes one can do no better than coerce? Perhaps it's a misunderstanding between our seperate definitions of coerce? I think of coerce as to convince. I suppose the literal definition is more like to force something to go against it's will?

Are you afraid of being charmed by someone?

Very... The loss of self is a terrible thing.

We can think "manly", or "womanly", or balanced.

It also has cultural differences. To me, manly has always been more "hands on" and practical while womanly is more intuitive and emotional. I imagine that we share common themes in this regard. As you say, we are both chldren of the West.

I've started the thread "We need the look of other eyes". Maybe you'd care to post your thoughts there?

Whew, another thread where I can posit the inner self. I am starting to feel like a broken record... I'll probably jump in eventually though.

Yah, they're called robots.

Only in the sense that animals are robots. They aren't truly aware of the things they do and what the consequences may be. It is only during social interactions that these beasts become "aware". The social ones anyway. It's possible that the unsocial ones are never aware in our sense of the word. Interestingly, hive insects with the most "efficient" social structures are most likely the least aware.

I do, huh? Thanks.

I was referring to your new avatar. You posted "watch me change" and I noticed a new avatar... so... it seems you've transcended into a higher life form composed of light. Congratulations.

Free will -- it applies to 2 things:

-- what we *wish* or *want* to do or think,

-- what we *actually* do or think.

Yes, this is exactly the case.

3. We also have the ability to think in terms of "what if ...", another distinction between thought and performed action.

I remember reading something a long time ago about how imagining something is almost the same as actually doing it. They had a group of people practicing free throws in basketball and they had another group that imagined doing it. The imagine group advanced almost as much as the practice group.

I should probably stop here. This is turning into a novel.