If Free Will Isn't Real, We Will Have To Invent It.

[BuddyFerris]

Let me ask you Buddy. Do you think anything happens without causes?

Unlikely. I suspect we might trace most events backwards through effect/causal chains. The places where we cannot will probably be few on the above-quantum level, probably myriad below. But do I think events spring unbidden from nowhere? No.

Buddy

[Ouroboros]

Hans and I are friends but this doesn’t mean that we always agree. I happen to suspect that organisms are not machines. But I also suspect that I lack the ability to argue my stance on this with any sort of rigor at the moment. I am hoping that after a few more years of study I will be in a better position to do so.

 

Hans will probably agree with your, " I happen to suspect that organisms are not machines." As do I, and I'll go further to allow that such existence apart from the machine aspect is probably natural in every sense.

Buddy

Or rather, when we use the term "machines" we refer to a particular kind of devices, and I do see organisms as a form of "machine," but not like the machines we have in production and use today. I do consider organisms as a device, because they too are a composite of functions, each function doing a certain job, and the result of it is the sum of all those functions working unison. However, the computer is a digital, sequential, and static device, while humans and animals are biological, neural, and adaptive device. I use the word machine sometimes in comparison to humans and the mind, but that's because we have no word right now to describe the "mechanical" nature of biological entities. The body and mind, in the biological sense, have a deterministic nature, however it's so incredible complex and most of it goes down to a very advanced level of chemical process, that we can't predict the processes most of the time. Medicine works, and sometimes they don't even know why, but when it works, it's seems to be working fairly consistent, which points to that medicine isn't the work of some gods, angels, demons, or pixies, but is a predictable natural occurrence. If a person gets injured in the frontal lobe the personality changes. If the person have depression, medication can be used and in most cases relieve that depression (but might not work in some because their chemical composition could be different). Or even our regular, daily diet can change our mood and behavior. Or sickness, or parasites. For instance, take the toxoplasma gondii, which can affect a whole population and their behavior regarding money, work, culture, and more. It's hard to say we are "free" if parasites can lead who groups of people into similar behavior. link I know we differ in opinion about these things, and my opinion is based on reading many interesting articles and a few books, then thinking hard about it, and it's very unlikely I will change my mind. So I'll leave it at that.

[BuddyFerris]

... So if I do understand your view, a person 'chooses' as a complex function of experiences. That 'choice' is perhaps made prior to our conscious awareness of it (by a quarter second?). The choice is a calculable result of complex factors of current mood, prior experiences, peripheral information resident in current awareness, etc. OK so far?

Buddy

Yes. Okay so far.

It appears then that we are suggesting that choice may follow decision sequentially. Our current awareness perceives itself as making a choice while in reality, our subconscious processes are presenting us the opportunity with the result already having been decided.

Does that describe your position adequately?

[Ouroboros]

It appears then that we are suggesting that choice may follow decision sequentially. Our current awareness perceives itself as making a choice while in reality, our subconscious processes are presenting us the opportunity with the result already having been decided.

Does that describe your position adequately?

Yeah, I think so. I'm not sure what you mean "choice may follow decision," but I think you got it. There are evidence to suggest that our awareness isn't much more than a recorder of events after the fact, instead of being the lead. So it's my current view at least, that our feeling of being in control isn't more than just the brain recording what just happened and think it had something to do with it. And in a sense it's right, but it was done with our subconscious process rather than the conscious. And what I find interesting is that this view explains many things to me about martial arts, playing music instruments, meditation, and more, but that's a different topic.

[BuddyFerris]

It appears then that we are suggesting that choice may follow decision sequentially. Our current awareness perceives itself as making a choice while in reality, our subconscious processes are presenting us the opportunity with the result already having been decided.

Does that describe your position adequately?

Yeah, I think so. I'm not sure what you mean "choice may follow decision," but I think you got it. There are evidence to suggest that our awareness isn't much more than a recorder of events after the fact, instead of being the lead. So it's my current view at least, that our feeling of being in control isn't more than just the brain recording what just happened and think it had something to do with it. And in a sense it's right, but it was done with our subconscious process rather than the conscious. And what I find interesting is that this view explains many things to me about martial arts, playing music instruments, meditation, and more, but that's a different topic.

What then will you do, my friend, as you pick and choose among the pieces of life that you'll face? Will you resign yourself to the inevitability of the path that is laid out for you? Will you relinquish those decisions to a process in which you may not participate? Of course not, although a lesser man might, I suppose. Like most of us, I expect that you'll continue to labor for wisdom as you make careful choices on your own behalf and on behalf of those you love. You'll diligently pursue knowledge, you'll think and rethink, you'll reach up... you'll choose. For real. Describe it otherwise if you must, my friend.

Buddy

[Ouroboros]

What then will you do, my friend, as you pick and choose among the pieces of life that you'll face? Will you resign yourself to the inevitability of the path that is laid out for you?

No, because I have experience and knowledge which leads me on new paths. I only resign to my own mind... which is no different than you and I have done our whole life. We are who we are. What you're trying to do is creating a false dichotomy where there is none. I don't see a difference between me as human, or me as an animal, or me as the device made of nature.

 

If I started to argue that a rock is actually two parts. It has a top part, and a bottom part, and the two never meets. You would then claim they are both the same. A top of the rock and the bottom of the rock, are parts of the same rock. And I would go on, and on, and on, with saying, "oh, no, how can you then account for the top part of the rock, which is not the same as the bottom part of the rock, they can't be the same, they must be different." And on it goes. The problem is that you don't see it from the right perspective, and by looking at it from the position you are at, you will continue to misunderstand the deeper context here.

 

Will you relinquish those decisions to a process in which you may not participate?

Why would I? Are you saying that free will is magic? Or free will can't exist unless we can't explain it? I see. Free will must be mystical, or it can't exist at all.

 

Just because I know what I'm made off, it doesn't mean I should reduce what I am into something less, right? If I know how I work, why should I force myself to work less than the way I'm working, just because I know it? If a computer had a manual for how the CPU worked, then it must be forced to become a calculator. Is that what you intent to say here? Why must something be made something less, only because we know what we are?

 

Of course not, although a lesser man might, I suppose. Like most of us, I expect that you'll continue to labor for wisdom as you make careful choices on your own behalf and on behalf of those you love. You'll diligently pursue knowledge, you'll think and rethink, you'll reach up... you'll choose. For real. Describe it otherwise if you must, my friend.

Buddy

I choose, for real, because my choice is made by me, and I am my experience, knowledge, and capacity. I am not more than I am, because if I were, than that would be who I am and not more than that.

 

Lets say Buddy, that we make our choice in our "soul" and this soul is something more and outside our universe. Animals can make choices too, unless you want them to be robots of nature. Which means, they also have God given souls in a parallel universe to guide their decisions. Now, that soul in the parallel universe must make choices based on previous experience and knowledge, and the nature of that soul is exactly that. The choice made from past experience is not removed by adding a black-box we call "Free Will-And only God knows how it works." We will to 99.9999% make choices based on who we are, regardless if that "choosing" device is supernatural or natural.

 

I guess what you want to say is that people are either "good" or "evil," and some people, regardless of their experience, will make "good" choices, while some people will always make "bad" choices, but you see, that can be explained too with natural means, it's not based on the nature of a "black-box-soul," it is (by sufficient evidence in psychology) controlled by brain, chemicals, and other natural reasons. The whole nature-nurture conflict is over. Psychology today does not make a separation and say only this side, or that side, but they do agree that it's both nature and nurture which makes the person.

 

A child's development is a development in awareness and consciousness. The different stages have strong indications of how the child is growing in awareness about its surroundings and its place therein.

[agnosticator]

HanSolo,

 

What you touched on about the subconscious and music (among other things), rings true to me. I've improvised as a jazz/rock musician and many times found myself playing things "out of nowhere" or as if someone else was at the helm. I realize it was the "stew" from my subconscious composing from what was already there, but it is still amazing to me.

 

I think BuddyFerris has a different definition of "free" than I do, or maybe you too. "Free" in "free will" for me is totally independant of all external influences. I don't know if that is a proper way of looking at the "free" in "freewill", but that's what comes to my mind. So, in this way, it is impossible to make a truly free decision or choice. To see it as truly free, would make it "outside" of the natural universe.

[Ouroboros]

What you touched on about the subconscious and music (among other things), rings true to me. I've improvised as a jazz/rock musician and many times found myself playing things "out of nowhere" or as if someone else was at the helm. I realize it was the "stew" from my subconscious composing from what was already there, but it is still amazing to me.

Exactly.

 

If you know anything about martial arts, and specifically Tai Chi and how it's different from Kung-Fu and other arts. Tai Chi is considered an "internal" martial art, where it's matter of releasing your mind and let the body do the move. The body (the subconscious) can make the decisions for moving (if trained correctly) and can block, hit, punch, kick, and the conscious only needs to watch. I have confirmed this with guys who do Tai Chi (and I'm not talking about the Tai Chi form only, but applied form, where they actually do learn how to fight.) And what is amazing that they understand what I'm talking about, and I understand them, and I don't study Tai Chi.

 

I have had the zone experience in playing music, and it's wonderful. You watch yourself from outside, and the other you plays by itself, and wonderful too. And when you improvise, the improvisation comes by itself, and you just listen to it. It's an amazing experience.

 

Or take meditation, when you can let go of your higher mind, and the lower mind can play out its thoughts, after a while you start to see the answers, without planning them. It's like having multiple computers at your service, and you just let them do their job, and you can see what comes to mind and you're one with it.

 

Today I managed to go into the zone during a match in foosball. I managed to clear my mind, and just block a ball. I could see the ball moving, and I could see my players blocking the ball, and I didn't do it, but I know it was me doing it.

 

I have an experience from a long time ago, when I was teaching computer science at a Christian school. I also was working part time for a company and during a short break I got a phone call from a customer. They had a problem which I had to fix immediately, and I only had 5 minutes to do it. The thoughts came to mind without a blink, "do this, do that, then do this, now test it again." And it worked. And it took me days to figure out what I had done, and why it worked. My subconscious solved the problem, and I only had to report it.

 

 

I think BuddyFerris has a different definition of "free" than I do, or maybe you too. "Free" in "free will" for me is totally independant of all external influences. I don't know if that is a proper way of looking at the "free" in "freewill", but that's what comes to my mind. So, in this way, it is impossible to make a truly free decision or choice. To see it as truly free, would make it "outside" of the natural universe.

I most definitely think language is the major barrier when talking about this topic, and I think language is probably the reason why most philosophers can't agree either. They might even have the same thoughts at times, but they say it in different ways, so they can't agree. I think the solution is there and available, but we won't know the answer until our definitions have become more clear. Our understanding of many things rides on the wave of the definitions.

[agnosticator]

Thanks, HanSolo. I find very few people in my life that can relate to or understand what I'm talking about when I want to share my experiences.

 

I was watching a martial arts master from Thailand (I think)on TV. He practiced his discipline of self-defence for real life fighting. They fight to kill. I wish I remembered what it's called. It was cool.

[Ouroboros]

Thanks, HanSolo. I find very few people in my life that can relate to or understand what I'm talking about when I want to share my experiences.

Yeah. I know the feeling. I've only met a few people too. Luckily I'm working with one guy, who is almost like a copy of me (or I'm a copy of him), in temperament, thought, ideas, understanding, etc. The only difference is that he's Vietnamese and 10 years younger than me.

 

I was watching a martial arts master from Thailand (I think)on TV. He practiced his discipline of self-defence for real life fighting. They fight to kill. I wish I remembered what it's called. It was cool.

Isn't there something called Thai Boxing?

[BuddyFerris]

... I have experience and knowledge which leads me on new paths. I only resign to my own mind... which is no different than you and I have done our whole life. We are who we are. What you're trying to do is creating a false dichotomy where there is none. I don't see a difference between me as human, or me as an animal, or me as the device made of nature.

 

If I started to argue that a rock is actually two parts. It has a top part, and a bottom part, and the two never meets. You would then claim they are both the same. A top of the rock and the bottom of the rock, are parts of the same rock. And I would go on, and on, and on, with saying, "oh, no, how can you then account for the top part of the rock, which is not the same as the bottom part of the rock, they can't be the same, they must be different." And on it goes. The problem is that you don't see it from the right perspective, and by looking at it from the position you are at, you will continue to misunderstand the deeper context here.

 

... Are you saying that free will is magic? Or free will can't exist unless we can't explain it? I see. Free will must be mystical, or it can't exist at all.

 

Just because I know what I'm made off, it doesn't mean I should reduce what I am into something less, right? If I know how I work, why should I force myself to work less than the way I'm working, just because I know it? If a computer had a manual for how the CPU worked, then it must be forced to become a calculator. Is that what you intent to say here? Why must something be made something less, only because we know what we are?

 

... I choose, for real, because my choice is made by me, and I am my experience, knowledge, and capacity. I am not more than I am, because if I were, than that would be who I am and not more than that.

 

... We will to 99.9999% make choices based on who we are, regardless if that "choosing" device is supernatural or natural.

A thoughtful response, Hans. I'll take the undercurrent of exasperation as my fault. Agnosticator has pointed out at least one element of the difficulty we face in questioning the definition of 'free', but perhaps even he goes a bit further than I and gives us a third position in suggesting an 'independent of all external influences'. I'm inclined to natural, fully integrated decision making, and as you suggest, I suspect we will make choices based on who we are to the last percentile. We are (at the very least) the sum of our experiences, I think, and your restatement of that in various ways causes me no particular difficulty.

 

You've described your own experience of discovering answers generated subconsciously, something we all have probably experienced. I remember lying half-awake one morning and recalling line by line an elaborate musical piece my father had directed when I was a child. I watched as my mind reeled off the several hundred lines of words and played the harmonies in the background. It ain't Ti-Chi, but it'll do for the illustration. It's as though training and repetition would create sub-routines that could be called later to re-run in semi-automatic mode. A natural process, and not unexpected as it follows in the context of motor skill development, problem solving, and habit formation.

 

I'm not concerned whether free will exists or not. We all know it does, or we're sure it doesn't, or perhaps we're all deceived, but we'll continue to act as though we are each perfectly free to choose this or that. We haven't discovered how we might do otherwise.

 

Of interest to me, and obviously not communicated well, is the mechanism of choice at a different stage than what we've described. We may have parted ways in understanding when I asked about 'decision preceding choice sequentially'. I was (and am) struggling your description of how a 'decision' (choice) might be made before 'I' make it, if that helps.

 

"If I know how I work...", you've said. Perhaps you do, Hans, and you've described it well philosophically. The mechanics thereof may leave me a bit confused.

 

I guess what you want to say is that people are either "good" or "evil," and some people, regardless of their experience, will make "good" choices, while some people will always make "bad" choices, but you see, that can be explained too with natural means, it's not based on the nature of a "black-box-soul," it is (by sufficient evidence in psychology) controlled by brain, chemicals, and other natural reasons. The whole nature-nurture conflict is over. Psychology today does not make a separation and say only this side, or that side, but they do agree that it's both nature and nurture which makes the person.

The good or evil issue wasn't on my mind. Just the freedom to choose. Is the process ours to direct or are we directed from choice to choice, solution to solution, by the process?

 

If I understand your description correctly, choice is most often well in hand prior (in time) to our awareness of it or contribution to it. While that's a bit of a departure from the use I would expect for the words, if that's the one you prefer, it'll do. The 'I' in your description then extends comfortably back into the pre-conscious or subconscious processes. We can be comfortably agreed that our (well trained) sub-conscious provides us with pre-made solutions, even solutions to elaborate and complex problems.

 

The place we haven't touched on is the remaining gateway of conscious awareness, perhaps. Can we umpire those sub-routine provided solutions. Can we consider the options presented and make a choice? Of course we can, and of course the choice will include consideration of experience and circumstance and perhaps a myriad of other factors. But is it a choice or is it an automated process, the mathematical (inevitable) sum of those components? One implies, the other denies 'free' will in the way I've been using the term.

 

At this point, you might ask if it matters. Our experience is comfortably under our control, or so we presume, so why should it matter if we are truly free to choose? Perhaps at this one juncture; if we are free to choose, the future is available for us to mold. If not, perhaps not.

Buddy

[agnosticator]

Isn't there something called Thai Boxing?

 

I looked it up and found that what I saw is called Muay Thai. It is not boxing, but incorporates the fists along with the head, elbows, knees, and feet: the nine principal weapons. It's their form of hand-to-hand combat.

[Ouroboros]

...

Of interest to me, and obviously not communicated well, is the mechanism of choice at a different stage than what we've described. We may have parted ways in understanding when I asked about 'decision preceding choice sequentially'. I was (and am) struggling your description of how a 'decision' (choice) might be made before 'I' make it, if that helps.

Great response from you too Buddy, I think we're starting to understand (or interpret) each others words better. In a way, we have through this dialogue programmed each other to translate the other person's way of expressing themselves to images in our own minds.

 

Ok, the way I see it, and this is in no way something I can say is absolutely for sure, but my understanding of the things I've read, is that consciousness first of all isn't one unit. It is not one thing we really can call consciousness, but rather multiple functions working together, and not always all of them at once. Exactly what these functions are, what they are called, or located in the brain, I don't know, only that the problem starts already at this point, that it's not one single thing, but multiple things in synchronicity or symbiotic. Free Will is perhaps one function, the Ego is maybe one, and I don't know what else would be there, but somewhere high up in the hierarchy we must have some function which say: "This is me doing this." The top part there doesn't make the decisions, but works more like the Executive branch of our country when a legislation is proposed, he can veto it, but he didn't do the groundwork. Basically, the thoughts and reasoning is processed in the brain, the Executive gets to know it and know it is "me" doing it, but it isn't Executive who do the actual work. Then a decision is made in the different departments, and most of the time a thousand different options we have are trimmed down to only one, but occasionally there still are two or three options and perhaps the Executive branch gets a chance to have the final word between the two options, but maybe it's done by a secretary, I'm not sure. The thing is though, that almost all processing is done, and this "awareness" part of our brain seems to be the last one in the chain of everything that goes on. So it's not our awareness which plans, execute, and decide the majority of the time, but the non-aware processes. That's what I mean that the decision is done, or almost done, before "I" (the aware part of me) gets a chance to see it. But somehow it does slow down the process, maybe as a double check, or that it has to give a stamp of approval before the body can execute the order.

 

So I think the confusion between us is that there are a level of "I" which is my body, my brain, my mind, the whole me, while there is an "I" which is the awareness of identity, memory, process, thoughts, but is pretty much a recording unit who gets the parts mostly after the fact. Which musicians, martial art, computer gamers, dancers, and so on can experience through the "out of body" feeling when they do things they've learned so well to do.

 

"If I know how I work...", you've said. Perhaps you do, Hans, and you've described it well philosophically. The mechanics thereof may leave me a bit confused.

Perhaps the description above makes it less confusing? If you ask me for the specific parts of the brain, I have to look it up, I can't remember them as well as I want to, and most of the time there are bits and pieces of information in one place, and some other in another.

 

The good or evil issue wasn't on my mind. Just the freedom to choose. Is the process ours to direct or are we directed from choice to choice, solution to solution, by the process?

Ok. I do think it's a mix. And when we do "freely" choose, the choice is more of a random thing. If I love chocolate and vanilla, but I have to pick one, it either will be the one I "feel" like for that day, or I just randomly pick one without thought of why. Unfortunately I suspect that even in the cases of "random" picking, it might be a process in our brain which leads to that decision, and given the exact same situation we're still most likely to pick one over the other, and perhaps it still would be based on preference of taste or color. Sometimes we might be because we just had the other option. Maybe I just ate chocolate ice cream, 1 hour ago, so vanilla is subconsciously reasoned to be a break in the pattern, and that's because we have some old idea that individuality and independence is something to strive for...

 

Anyway, most of the time I think we're directed, but the underlying pattern or reasons is so tremendously complex, so I don't think we'll ever be able to map out a persons decision-tree. It's not like we'll ever be able to create a flow-chart over why or when Hans will pick chocolate ice cream instead of vanilla. There would be trillions, if not trillions of trillions of small boxes in the chart and arrows from one box to hundred others. Yet, it is what drives the decision, but it's impossible to chart. If you know anything about Chaos Theory, then this is a place where it comes in. Read up on Mandelbrot's Fractals, and think of our mind as the whole picture, while all the small parts, colors, dots, and patters, are all created by a very simple formula. Fractals are deterministic in nature, but infinite in possibilities, and hence, if you ask me how the pattern will look like in the box of coordinates (1.542, 0.859) and (1.559, 0.890), I can't unless I use a computer which might take a minute to calculate and display. Then imagine I narrow or zoom in inside that area, the computer has to calculate again. And so on. We're looking at the image from top down, but in reality, the mind is an image from bottom-up, the result of an infinite process leading to one single point in time where the outcome is you and I.

 

If I understand your description correctly, choice is most often well in hand prior (in time) to our awareness of it or contribution to it. While that's a bit of a departure from the use I would expect for the words, if that's the one you prefer, it'll do. The 'I' in your description then extends comfortably back into the pre-conscious or subconscious processes. We can be comfortably agreed that our (well trained) sub-conscious provides us with pre-made solutions, even solutions to elaborate and complex problems.

Yes.

 

The place we haven't touched on is the remaining gateway of conscious awareness, perhaps. Can we umpire those sub-routine provided solutions. Can we consider the options presented and make a choice? Of course we can, and of course the choice will include consideration of experience and circumstance and perhaps a myriad of other factors. But is it a choice or is it an automated process, the mathematical (inevitable) sum of those components? One implies, the other denies 'free' will in the way I've been using the term.

Yes. Like I tried to lay out above. I think the Executive got the last word, but it doesn't do the grunt work of reasoning to the last options available. And also, the function of knowing that "I'm making this choice" or "I made this choice" isn't the Executive, but some other function, like the Clerk. So when we're talking about ourselves, it's usually this Clerk who does it. He/she is the one who wants to point to ourselves and say "I" did this, "I" made this choice. At least this is how I think it works.

 

At this point, you might ask if it matters. Our experience is comfortably under our control, or so we presume, so why should it matter if we are truly free to choose? Perhaps at this one juncture; if we are free to choose, the future is available for us to mold. If not, perhaps not.

Buddy

True. Freedom is first about having the options available. We are not fully free from that perspective, since I can't just start flying, or start talking Chinese. Some things are restricted to me because nature doesn't provide me automatically with the infinite amount of options to choose from. Secondly, given a thousand options, we limit ourselves to the options we can really choose from, like when I'm driving, I'm free to drive off the road, or crash into someone else, or fall asleep, or more, but they are filtered out as bad options early on in our decision process. Thirdly, of the few options left, we quickly, before we even know it are laying out some fundamental reasons to why one option should be picked over another, and this is probably based on preference, like if I should stay in this lane, or move over to the right. And if the options are equal, or if one option wins out, the executive part gets the last word, and perhaps the awareness part (the clerk) already now knows about the last options, and the executive give the stamp, and the clerk just document, "so be it." And along this long-winding process, a few random events maybe causes one option to have a higher vote than normal, so the chances today that I change lane is a bit higher, than it was yesterday, or will be tomorrow.

[Ouroboros]

Isn't there something called Thai Boxing?

 

I looked it up and found that what I saw is called Muay Thai. It is not boxing, but incorporates the fists along with the head, elbows, knees, and feet: the nine principal weapons. It's their form of hand-to-hand combat.

Ah yes! There's a movie called Ong Bak (or something) with some Muay Thai fighter. It's supposed to be really good.

[Alice]

Are not our decisons 'predetermined' by the (to use a popular phrase of mine) sum of our knowledge, experience and genes.

 

This does not negate our capacity for weighing up options but our capacity to choose is limited by the above set of conditions.

 

The unconscious mind really is amazing. Buddy, have you seen the Derren Brown experiement where he teaches a punter to speed view an encyclodedia, without noting any of the details but letteing his eyes run over the words, tehn enters him into a general knowledge quiz where he is charged with 'answering without thinking about the answers' - the informaion he had stored in his brain without knowing it was there was astounding.

 

Hello Buddy, by the way - how are you? lng time no see - although my visits are also periodic these days.

[BuddyFerris]

... So I think the confusion between us is that there are a level of "I" which is my body, my brain, my mind, the whole me, while there is an "I" which is the awareness of identity, memory, process, thoughts, but is pretty much a recording unit who gets the parts mostly after the fact. Which musicians, martial art, computer gamers, dancers, and so on can experience through the "out of body" feeling when they do things they've learned so well to do.

 

... Ok. I do think it's a mix. And when we do "freely" choose, the choice is more of a random thing. ...

 

Anyway, most of the time I think we're directed, but the underlying pattern or reasons is so tremendously complex, so I don't think we'll ever be able to map out a persons decision-tree. ... in reality, the mind is an image from bottom-up, the result of an infinite process leading to one single point in time where the outcome is you and I.

 

... The 'I' in your description then extends comfortably back into the pre-conscious or subconscious processes. We can be comfortably agreed that our (well trained) sub-conscious provides us with pre-made solutions, even solutions to elaborate and complex problems.

Yes.

 

... Like I tried to lay out above. I think the Executive got the last word, but it doesn't do the grunt work of reasoning to the last options available. And also, the function of knowing that "I'm making this choice" or "I made this choice" isn't the Executive, but some other function, like the Clerk. So when we're talking about ourselves, it's usually this Clerk who does it. He/she is the one who wants to point to ourselves and say "I" did this, "I" made this choice. At least this is how I think it works.

 

... Freedom is first about having the options available. We are not fully free from that perspective, since I can't just start flying, or start talking Chinese. Some things are restricted to me because nature doesn't provide me automatically with the infinite amount of options to choose from. Secondly, given a thousand options, we limit ourselves to the options we can really choose from, like when I'm driving, I'm free to drive off the road, or crash into someone else, or fall asleep, or more, but they are filtered out as bad options early on in our decision process. Thirdly, of the few options left, we quickly, before we even know it are laying out some fundamental reasons to why one option should be picked over another, and this is probably based on preference, like if I should stay in this lane, or move over to the right. And if the options are equal, or if one option wins out, the executive part gets the last word, and perhaps the awareness part (the clerk) already now knows about the last options, and the executive give the stamp, and the clerk just document, "so be it." And along this long-winding process, a few random events maybe causes one option to have a higher vote than normal, so the chances today that I change lane is a bit higher, than it was yesterday, or will be tomorrow.

Progress in understanding each other, Hans; and more interesting as we make our way along the path.

It appears that we have agreement on a variety of things. Mental processes might be described as falling into at least a couple of categories ...

 

- pre-conscious or subconscious (trained subroutines, peripheral data correlation and retrieval, automated problem resolution, preference consideration, circumstance evaluators,and so on; things that are outside our current state of awareness)

- conscious (awareness, current deliberations, solution monitoring and approval, and so on)

 

You've given us a couple of players in the description; the executive and the clerk. Since we've extended 'I' to include both categories of process, perhaps we can consider the to processes you've named to be part of the one 'I' as well.

 

You've gone to some lengths to describe the complexity of the decision making process, all useful of course. While suggesting our minds might be 'an infinite process' is interesting, I'm not sure I understand the usage. The things I do understand from you, I think, seem to suggest an 'inside the machine' approach. Particularly the concessions to randomization and chaos. One option has a higher vote today than yesterday, though, and what are the ramifications? A different lane for the cross-town, vanilla for dessert, rob a bank, sideswipe a police cruiser, and commit suicide; are all these the results of randomization? Do these little nuances of our choices come down to the difference between one quantum hiccup and another?

 

Or is there an 'I' that can actually choose?

 

Down there at the real bitter end, can you choose? You've run up to that point several times and then it seems you back up into various concessions to chaos and quantum events. I'm ok with that being your opinion. I just can't quite grasp how those triggers which aren't under your control can be called 'choice'.

 

Buddy

[Ouroboros]

You've gone to some lengths to describe the complexity of the decision making process, all useful of course. While suggesting our minds might be 'an infinite process' is interesting, I'm not sure I understand the usage.

If we for a moment forget the question about Big Bang and the First Event and such, and think of the possibility that quantum mechanics and energy could have existed in an infinite past. This leads to the thought that if all of it together would lead to my existence and the decision I'm making in this moment, then my decision is of an infinite complexity and can't always be made to a formula, just because of the chaos that underlies it.

 

Have you looked into Mandelbrot's fractals yet? Please do. Infinite complexity, but with borders.

 

The things I do understand from you, I think, seem to suggest an 'inside the machine' approach. Particularly the concessions to randomization and chaos. One option has a higher vote today than yesterday, though, and what are the ramifications? A different lane for the cross-town, vanilla for dessert, rob a bank, sideswipe a police cruiser, and commit suicide; are all these the results of randomization? Do these little nuances of our choices come down to the difference between one quantum hiccup and another?

Yes, I think it could.

 

Or is there an 'I' that can actually choose?

"I" is the sum of the embodiment of my experience. And this "I" does change with time. I'm not same as I was 10 years ago. Some choices in the past I regret, based on new knowledge and insights, and I can assume you have similar experience. If "I" was only a black-box which would make choices without the experience which creates me, I would always keep on making the same choices regardless of what new things I learn, but that's not how we work. We do change behavior, adapt, conform, and object when needed or when we have higher ideals, and so on. We do not stay exactly the same, while we do carry on all the past.

 

Down there at the real bitter end, can you choose? You've run up to that point several times and then it seems you back up into various concessions to chaos and quantum events. I'm ok with that being your opinion. I just can't quite grasp how those triggers which aren't under your control can be called 'choice'.

True. But you keep on forgetting that the complexity of the background to the decision is so far complex that it's not in my control. I feel in control of it, which is the premise of this topic, but the control is not really there. We "choose", and we think we do it based on some complete freedom, but it's an illusion, and that illusion exists regardless if I want it to or not. Even more than that, we need to have that illusion to be able to let our subconscious do its job. If I would intentionally try to stop my subconscious to make a decision, then I wouldn't make a decision, but I would go completely dark. We don't have that power over our mind. Just because I know this, it doesn't mean I suddenly magically have that power to control my "Clerk". Do you see what I'm saying? Just because I discovered I can't fly like a bird, it doesn't mean that I suddenly fall down dead to the ground. Knowing what we are, and how it works, doesn't stop it from working exactly that way. It's not like having a key, automatically makes it fit all keyholes and all doors becomes locked. I still experience, and I still feel that I make choices, but I also know that most of those ideas or choices are prepared before I come aware of them. Just like my mind have a train of thought, it doesn't matter that the Clerk think he came up with the idea or not, the Clerk still gets the paper on his desk.

 

We are what we are, and I have accepted it. However the process that leads to us making the choices, that's the process. And it sounds like you still are trying to figure out a way of saying that choice is a magical black-box, where a human make some kind of informed or "right" choice, without any background to why. It's a false dichotomy, there is no difference between what we have learned, and who we are. Remove the memories, and you have removed a large part of who that person is, the rest of what the person consist of is biological matter.

 

Maybe this article will shed a little bit more light on the issue: link I can't vote for everything in the article, but some of the ideas I'm carrying are presented there as well.

[BuddyFerris]

If we for a moment forget the question about Big Bang and the First Event and such, and think of the possibility that quantum mechanics and energy could have existed in an infinite past... Have you looked into Mandelbrot's fractals yet? Please do. Infinite complexity, but with borders.

Yes, Hans, fractals may be conceptually infinite, and interesting too. A line by definition is infinite, but it's infinite only as a concept. Only, only. The reality in each case is finite, is it not? The fractal 'description' implies an infinite sequence, but each real application thereof is of necessity finite. If you're a materialist (I'm not), no 'real' examples of infinity (or your infinite complexity) can exist beyond the conceptual. No?

... these little nuances of our choices come down to the difference between one quantum hiccup and another?

Yes, I think it could.

...and we live or die on the flip of a coin.

...

"I" is the sum of the embodiment of my experience. And this "I" does change with time. ... If "I" was only a black-box which would make choices without the experience which creates me, I would always keep on making the same choices regardless of what new things I learn...

Of course, I agree. The question remains, though. Do you take the coin flip results?

... I just can't quite grasp how those triggers which aren't under your control can be called 'choice'.

True. But you keep on forgetting that the complexity of the background to the decision is so far complex that it's not in my control. I feel in control of it, which is the premise of this topic, but the control is not really there. We "choose", and we think we do it based on some complete freedom, but it's an illusion, and that illusion exists regardless if I want it to or not. Even more than that, we need to have that illusion to be able to let our subconscious do its job. If I would intentionally try to stop my subconscious to make a decision, then I wouldn't make a decision, but I would go completely dark. We don't have that power over our mind. Just because I know this, it doesn't mean I suddenly magically have that power to control my "Clerk". Do you see what I'm saying? Just because I discovered I can't fly like a bird, it doesn't mean that I suddenly fall down dead to the ground. Knowing what we are, and how it works, doesn't stop it from working exactly that way. It's not like having a key, automatically makes it fit all keyholes and all doors becomes locked. I still experience, and I still feel that I make choices, but I also know that most of those ideas or choices are prepared before I come aware of them. Just like my mind have a train of thought, it doesn't matter that the Clerk think he came up with the idea or not, the Clerk still gets the paper on his desk.

'Complex' can't be substituted for 'yes', friend, but I think you've landed squarely on 'choice as illusion'. It's a defensible position, of course, or you wouldn't be there.

We are what we are, and I have accepted it. However the process that leads to us making the choices, that's the process. And it sounds like you still are trying to figure out a way of saying that choice is a magical black-box, where a human make some kind of informed or "right" choice, without any background to why.

Not me, pal. I'm in favor of a fully integrated, natural process. The machine, the person, the experience and knowledge base, the processes of observation and analysis, the intricacies of decision making. I'm inclined to recognize within the full process a degree of autonomy, perhaps, that the confined biological view seems to deny. We are familiar with observing others in the course of life, especially our immediate family members. We watch and sometimes see things that might contribute to their understanding, things they haven't grasped yet. Similarly, we observe our own lives and consider perhaps there are things we don't know yet. In your infinite complexity applied to a finite brain, where's the endpoint. Does the number of brain cells determine who might become wise or who remains selfish/foolish/murderous/naive/etc.?

 

Thanks for dragging me through your explanations, Hans. Thought provoking, to say the least. Happy Monday.

Buddy

[BuddyFerris]

Are not our decisons 'predetermined' by the (to use a popular phrase of mine) sum of our knowledge, experience and genes.

That's the question.

This does not negate our capacity for weighing up options but our capacity to choose is limited by the above set of conditions.

 

The unconscious mind really is amazing...

It is indeed.

Hello Buddy, by the way - how are you? lng time no see - although my visits are also periodic these days.

All's well, Alice. It has been a long time for both of us. I hope you're doing well.

Buddy

[Ouroboros]

Yes, Hans, fractals may be conceptually infinite, and interesting too. A line by definition is infinite, but it's infinite only as a concept. Only, only. The reality in each case is finite, is it not? The fractal 'description' implies an infinite sequence, but each real application thereof is of necessity finite. If you're a materialist (I'm not), no 'real' examples of infinity (or your infinite complexity) can exist beyond the conceptual. No?

I think the real mystery to consider of the world, regardless of our little discourse in free will, is the dualism of infinite and finite. They co-exists, and can't be without each other. A infinite existence of nature, or if you prefer "God", vs the finite existence of agents of experience (us). Just like in math, number 1 is finite, but the series of integer is infinite. Both must exist simultaneous.

 

'Complex' can't be substituted for 'yes', friend, but I think you've landed squarely on 'choice as illusion'. It's a defensible position, of course, or you wouldn't be there.

I suspect your problem is how complex chaos can become finite? See above, the mystery of the true dualism of nature.

 

Not me, pal. I'm in favor of a fully integrated, natural process. The machine, the person, the experience and knowledge base, the processes of observation and analysis, the intricacies of decision making. I'm inclined to recognize within the full process a degree of autonomy, perhaps, that the confined biological view seems to deny. We are familiar with observing others in the course of life, especially our immediate family members. We watch and sometimes see things that might contribute to their understanding, things they haven't grasped yet. Similarly, we observe our own lives and consider perhaps there are things we don't know yet. In your infinite complexity applied to a finite brain, where's the endpoint.

You're a bit of a naturalist Christian.

 

If your experience is the result of many events, which are in turn the results of other people decisions, which are based on their experience, which are also results of other people's decisions... The language I'm currently using to describe my thoughts is English. I didn't invent English. I'm in debt to millions of people in the past to form the tool I'm bound to use to convey my ideas to you, and you are also in debt to most of the same people, but then maybe to even some others, since we probably haven't read exactly the same books. And backwards it goes. The choices I make in English is defined by what I've learned and are able to remember. There could be better words, and better ways of describing what I want to say, but I'm limited to what I have, and the same goes for you. The finite makes the discourse possible, even if the complexity of the underlying knowledge can only be described in the words of millions of people in the past. And if we are influenced by trillions of cells in our brain... we're getting to extremely large numbers. But then, those particles, quarks, streams of energy, also come from somewhere. We're talking about the "First Principle" here, if everything was deterministic, our thoughts would be nothing but a chain reaction from the Big Bang, but I still allow quantum events to maybe throw a wrench in the system once in a while.

 

Here a wonderful symbiotic relationship between finite and infinite: (the formula is in essence infinite, but the realization or projection to our finite world of experience, it has to be given limits)

 

 

Does the number of brain cells determine who might become wise or who remains selfish/foolish/murderous/naive/etc.?

To some degree, but not only, nature+nurture makes it, just like the word I learned last year about the new perspective in psychology: bio-psycho-sociological.

 

Thanks for dragging me through your explanations, Hans. Thought provoking, to say the least. Happy Monday.

Buddy

Did you read the article I linked? I really recommend the reading, because I think they express it more efficient than I do. Happy Monday to you too.

[BuddyFerris]

...

I think the real mystery to consider of the world, regardless of our little discourse in free will, is the dualism of infinite and finite. They co-exists, and can't be without each other. A infinite existence of nature, or if you prefer "God", vs the finite existence of agents of experience (us). Just like in math, number 1 is finite, but the series of integer is infinite. Both must exist simultaneous.

You embark on dangerous ground there, friend. Such a dualistic description is not unfamiliar.

 

You're a bit of a naturalist Christian.

Of course, if such a term is useful. From a Christian's view, that to which you refer as natural and continue to examine while being overwhelmed with wonder is full of design from first detail to last, from macro to micro.

...

 

...

Did you read the article I linked? I really recommend the reading, because I think they express it more efficient than I do. Happy Monday to you too.

Yep. He follows much of the same lines of thought you have presented. He stops short in the same place as well. He raises the question, "So what about Hitler?

 

The death of free will, or its exposure as a convenient illusion, some worry, could wreak havoc on our sense of moral and legal responsibility. According to those who believe that free will and determinism are incompatible, Dr. Silberstein said in an e-mail message, it would mean that “people are no more responsible for their actions than asteroids or planets.” Anything would go."

 

A simple set of statements to which he (the article's author) offers the following solution -

 

"Dr. Wegner of Harvard said: “We worry that explaining evil condones it. We have to maintain our outrage at Hitler. But wouldn’t it be nice to have a theory of evil in advance that could keep him from coming to power?”

 

In other words, no solution, no answer at all. He sidesteps the question by appealing to alternative social priorities. In truth, however, the question remains unanswered and perhaps unanswerable in the materialist's realm. Much like infinity, perhaps. Conceptually acceptable for various uses but non-existent in reality if such reality is limited to the physical components. Of course, we do have your 'infinite nature of existence', or perhaps the nature of infinite existence.

Buddy

[Ouroboros]

You embark on dangerous ground there, friend. Such a dualistic description is not unfamiliar.

Well, at least my view is based real numbers and not on imaginary numbers.

 

You're a bit of a naturalist Christian.

Of course, if such a term is useful. From a Christian's view, that to which you refer as natural and continue to examine while being overwhelmed with wonder is full of design from first detail to last, from macro to micro.

I think the only difference between a naturalist view and the religious is that the naturalist merges our existence and mind to the existence of everything. I don't see me being more, better, or different from the world. I feel as one with it. Can a Christian claim to feel in place with all that is?

 

Yep. He follows much of the same lines of thought you have presented. He stops short in the same place as well. He raises the question, "So what about Hitler?

 

The death of free will, or its exposure as a convenient illusion, some worry, could wreak havoc on our sense of moral and legal responsibility. According to those who believe that free will and determinism are incompatible, Dr. Silberstein said in an e-mail message, it would mean that “people are no more responsible for their actions than asteroids or planets.” Anything would go."

 

A simple set of statements to which he (the article's author) offers the following solution -

 

"Dr. Wegner of Harvard said: “We worry that explaining evil condones it. We have to maintain our outrage at Hitler. But wouldn’t it be nice to have a theory of evil in advance that could keep him from coming to power?”

Well, that's a different question though. And I did touch on it that Free Will, and the argument for or against, really is a matter of the question of morality, justice, and responsibility. But I think we'll stray too far from the topic if we go down that path, but it's a valid question. Where does the naturalist view of free will lead to regarding obligations and justice.

 

In other words, no solution, no answer at all. He sidesteps the question by appealing to alternative social priorities. In truth, however, the question remains unanswered and perhaps unanswerable in the materialist's realm. Much like infinity, perhaps. Conceptually acceptable for various uses but non-existent in reality if such reality is limited to the physical components. Of course, we do have your 'infinite nature of existence', or perhaps the nature of infinite existence.

Buddy

Not true that there's no answer, because the question wasn't about how do you apply it within morality, but the question is only about the free will concept. If every research we do points the same direction, we can't deny it. It will not disappear just because we dislike it. The world doesn't work that way. We can't swing our wand and wish it gone, and then it's gone. If nature tells us how it works, we have to adjust our principles, don't you think? What else is there? When they discovered that the Universe contained 22 sixtillions of stars, should we deny it because it's such a fantastic big number and we can't comprehend it, or should we accept it and adjust? There are ways of dealing with morality in this new views, and I think there are ways of doing it for responsibility too, but I can't say for sure yet.

 

And at the same time, go back to the first post of this topic and look at it now from a new perspective. It seems like we have to believe we have the freedom to choose. The free will is most likely not as free as we think, but we have to imagine it is for us to be able to live good lives. We have to live certain myths, and it might surprise you when I tell you that I accept that. Certain things we have to believe in life to make it possible. I don't reject belief, but I don't accept all believes. It has to be reasonable. Going on with my daily life, I don't think about if my choices are mine or the result of a regression of influences, I just keep on acting as normal. My mind already know how to do this, and I just let it do its thing.

[BuddyFerris]

... Can a Christian claim to feel in place with all that is?

But of course, my friend. It's part of his heritage.

... The death of free will ... it would mean that “people are no more responsible for their actions than asteroids or planets.” ...

Well, that's a different question though. ...

I think you missed the point as did the author of the article you referenced. He didn't answer the question, and you skipped it as well.

In other words, no solution, no answer at all. He sidesteps the question by appealing to alternative social priorities. In truth, however, the question remains unanswered and perhaps unanswerable in the materialist's realm. ...

Buddy

Not true that there's no answer, because the question wasn't about how do you apply ...

Minor misunderstanding there, Hans. My reference was to the unanswered question raised by the author of the article you offered. He raises the question of Hitler (or any one else) being responsible for their choices. A materialist has no answer, as best I can discern.

And at the same time, go back to the first post of this topic and look at it now from a new perspective. It seems like we have to believe we have the freedom to choose. The free will is most likely not as free as we think, but we have to imagine it is for us to be able to live good lives. We have to live certain myths, and it might surprise you when I tell you that I accept that. Certain things we have to believe in life to make it possible. I don't reject belief, but I don't accept all believes. It has to be reasonable. Going on with my daily life, I don't think about if my choices are mine or the result of a regression of influences, I just keep on acting as normal. My mind already know how to do this, and I just let it do its thing.

We know how to keep going, for sure. That's how these conversations can go on for so long, no?

 

We're not as free as we might think, perhaps. You and I recognize the various inputs to the decision making process. No problem, but it sounds like we're not free in any sense, if I understand your description.

 

OK, perhaps as you suggest, free will is an illusion, however necessary to social stability. We behave as though choice were legitimate and responsibility were reasonable, just like normal. Then our kid gets involved with some sociopaths at school, gets expelled, and gets difficult at home. We, from our position of knowledge, pretend they are responsible for their actions, even though we know full well they had no choice in the matter. We apply appropriate discipline as though we actually had the option to do so in reasoned response to the circumstances, and we increase the penalties when the kid is unresponsive, etc. You're a jerk if you do. You know better.

 

Then piece, by piece, it all falls apart. At least it does if you really believe the offered 'truth' about yourself.

 

Alternatively, we might listen to the materialist's currently available explanations, find them inadequate, and just defer the decision until a reasonable explanation arises. Reasonable?

 

Now in fact, the process of decision is complex to the point where we, at our current degree of understanding, can't see the end from the beginning. Is the process therefore not deterministic? Or is the solution predetermined while being hidden from us and from our unsophisticated analysis tools? We can't reliably predict the behavior of others; is their course therefore freely chosen or perhaps predetermined as they walk in illusion?

 

Entertaining to pursue, as many have before us. None has yet persuasively shown us a materialist with free will. They, apparently, aren't allowed to have one.

 

You may be the exception, virtually speaking. Perhaps the program runs across more than one platform...

 

Buddy

[Ouroboros]

Minor misunderstanding there, Hans. My reference was to the unanswered question raised by the author of the article you offered. He raises the question of Hitler (or any one else) being responsible for their choices. A materialist has no answer, as best I can discern.

By why is it a question, unless there is a burden to that responsibility? The burden is only judged by morality, right or wrong, and is given through penalty or reward. Why is "responsibility" of any purpose or meaning, unless it has a context?

 

Are we talking about Hitler as the mass-murderer, or the health-nut who outlawed smoking, or the mentally ill person? Are we also including the countries who supported him and his ideas before he started to march into surrounding countries? Or are we talking about all the people who blamed the Jews for every problem under the sun many years before Hitler came to power? Or are we saying that evil men have a responsibility even when they are delusional and lack the moral fiber?

 

The responsibility is only interesting if you place it within those parameters, other than that, who cares if you pick a vanilla ice create over a chocolate? It's only when we're talking about serious matters, when a person makes the "choice" which we either hate or praise.

 

My opinion in that question isn't valid in this context. You have to bring more to the table before that question can be answered. The topic was about the "free will," but "responsibility" carries with it a lot more than just the things we've talked about. And I'm not sure I'm ready to go that path yet, because it would mean we'd have to dissect morality (judgment of our actions), as well as penalty/reward (burden of our actions). I hope you understand this. The Free Will question doesn't lead to an answer which can also answer the questions outside Free Will, any more than 1+1 is 2, would mean 2 is also the answer for 2+2.

[BuddyFerris]

... why is it a question, unless there is a burden to that responsibility? The burden is only judged by morality, right or wrong, and is given through penalty or reward. Why is "responsibility" of any purpose or meaning, unless it has a context?

 

Are we talking about Hitler as the mass-murderer, or the health-nut who outlawed smoking, or the mentally ill person? Are we also including the countries who supported him and his ideas before he started to march into surrounding countries? Or are we talking about all the people who blamed the Jews for every problem under the sun many years before Hitler came to power? Or are we saying that evil men have a responsibility even when they are delusional and lack the moral fiber?

 

The responsibility is only interesting if you place it within those parameters, other than that, who cares if you pick a vanilla ice create over a chocolate? It's only when we're talking about serious matters, when a person makes the "choice" which we either hate or praise.

 

My opinion in that question isn't valid in this context. You have to bring more to the table before that question can be answered. The topic was about the "free will," but "responsibility" carries with it a lot more than just the things we've talked about. And I'm not sure I'm ready to go that path yet, because it would mean we'd have to dissect morality (judgment of our actions), as well as penalty/reward (burden of our actions). I hope you understand this. The Free Will question doesn't lead to an answer which can also answer the questions outside Free Will, any more than 1+1 is 2, would mean 2 is also the answer for 2+2.

Good morning Hans.

 

As you suggest, we might withhold consideration of the question of responsibility until the parameters are a bit more defined. You begin to see the issue, though, I presume. The intro to this thread suggests free will might be essential because of the responsibility/accountability issues raised by its absence.

 

In the absence of free will, is there such a thing as personal responsibility? Or is that just part of the illusion as well? From within the illusion, can we who are informed regarding the self-deception then in good conscience hold our children 'responsible' when such is just a continuation of the illusion (lie). It begins to unravel, does it not? Would you discipline your child for something over which they had no control? Would you teach them the lie that you had decided to embrace?

 

A presumed philosophical essentiality for free will's illusion provides no mechanism to avoid the insanity such deliberate self-deception might entail. Nor does it offer excuse or remedy for the inevitable pain it will introduce into the lives of those with whom we intimately interact.

 

We can entertain such wonderings for ourselves, I think; no harm, no foul. I don't think we can actually live them out without harming others; something a father would not deliberately do to his children. No?

 

It almost seems as if we're reaching for a material explanation for a non-material phenomenon.

 

Have a great left-coast day (sunny with a high today of 85) while I traipse through the muck to work under gray skies (high today of 34)!

Buddy