Free Will...

[?] Free Will (classical) conflicts with causality, regardless of causality's actual nature.

The validity of predeterminism deals with the nature of causality.

Could you define classical and volitional? Meaningless to me without definitions.

From humanknowledge.net

Free will is either of the doctrines that human choices are a) determined internally rather than externally (volitional free will) or b) not pre-determined at all (indeterminate free will).  Determinism is incompatible with indeterminate free will, but is compatible with volitional free will if agents have internal state that influences (and thus helps determines) their actions.  Volitional free will is also compatible with forms of indeterminism in which the acausality is not so rampant as to undermine agent self-influence.  Indeterminate free will requires indeterminism, but degenerates into uncaused chance if acausality confounds not only prediction of effect but also attribution of cause.

Osiris

I think its important to point out that there is no scientific explanation for self-awareness, nor any way of measuring or detecting it.  I know that I am aware, but I can't know for sure if anybody else actually is or not.  Given the similarities between me and other people I can only infer that other people are probably self-aware as well.

If I didn't know that I was self-aware, the idea of self awareness would suffer the same skepticism that classical free will does.  However I do know that self awareness exists despite there being no reason for it from a purely physical level. 

So just as I assume without being able to prove it that other people are self-aware, I assume that I have classical free will.

One thing that I must agree with you on is how intimately FW is tied in with our understanding of consciousness. However, where we differ is in our base lines assumptions about the nature of "self awareness" or "consciousness". By maintaining a position of classical (or indeterminate) FW as you are, by default, advancing the philosophical position of causal emergentism, by which I mean you are granting mental or *nonphysical* processes the ability to generate force on physical processes. The effect of this is that you can maintain mental/self causation at the expense of denying the causal closure of physics.

The position that both of us avoided (like the plague [lol] -- though, believe it or not, this is not an entirely unrespectable position) is that of eliminativism, which denies consciousness outright.

I've brought up briefly epiphenomenalism, which does not deny that consciousness exists, but denies that it plays a causal role in the overall process. I do not believe that consciousness is entirely epiphenominal, though I leave open the possibility that certain aspects (like qualia) are.

There's also materialism which considers consciousness to be one and the same with the physical. Again, not a denial of the phenomenon of consciousness, but it does tie it directly to physical causality.

And finally there is the position that I am attempting to put forward -- causal compatibilism (very similar to functionalism). In this case physics is causally closed, but what is denied is that all of its causal properties are entirely physical (rather than some being *functional*).

And I think that covers all of the bases, though I could be wrong.
--------------------------------------
I've noticed that you (Osiris) are nothing if not consistent, in that the position you have taken is inherently Libertarian (edit: not Libertine). As I'm sure you know by now I do not favor this position, mainly because I view it as being in conflict with some aspects of naturalistic philosophy....okay, okay, so what's my point?

Well, if you've happened to read Darwins Dangerous Idea by Dennett you may recall his famous metaphor of *skyhooks* and *cranes*. For whatever reason, perhaps because its easier, perhaps because our psychology desires the mystery of it, humanity has always gravitated toward the skyhook explanations. However, without fail, science has time and time again shown these skyhooks to be nothing other than an elaborate system of cranes.

I would contend that the idea I brought forward earlier in this thread of "intentionality" is yet another example of a series of cranes being mistaken for a skyhook (indeterminate free will).

Back to Dennett again (interestingly I have also found functionalists who present a type of taxonomical classification similar to the one I am about to present, but since I am familiar with Dennett I will stick with him), some may think Freedom Evolves to be nothing more than a catchy title, but I have come to view this concept as extremely significant. As it so happens, intentionality is not exclusive to humans. In fact, virtually all cybernetic organisms have at least some degree of intentionality.

Dennett breaks intentional creatures down into the following catagories:

1.  Darwinian creatures which were simply selected by trial and error on the merits of their bodies’ ability to survive (after Charles Darwin);

2.  Skinnerian creatures use simple trial and error to establish how best to deal with a new situation. (after B.F. Skinner)

3.  Popperian creatures which can play an action internally in a simulated environment, before they perform it in the real environment and can, therefore, reduce the chances of negative effects. (after sir Karl Popper who said that ”our hypothesis die in our stead”)

4.  Gregorian creatures are organisms whose inner environments are informed by the designed parts of outer environment. These creatures are tools-enabled and in particular they master the tool of language. They also are able to learn from the experiences of the other members of their specie. (after Richard Gregory)

Intentionality then is an evolved phenotypic feature and directly relational to the cybernetic paradigm, with the Gregorian level of intentionality being an emergent property of the memetic paradigm (which usurped the biological paradigm) and the advanced levels of abstration it allowed for.

My point is that your position is asking us to believe that Free Will magically arose (without any predecessors) from a billion year evolutionary process for no reason whatsoever. I am claiming that intentionality -- the essential quality of volitional free will -- is an evolved feature with numerous developmental steps that can be pinpointed on the phylogenetic bush of life.

Magical skyhooks or logical cranes, take your pick. [thumb]

Edited by DonSpanton, 17 June 2005 - 05:39 PM.

Dennett on Free Will

I just have a simple philosophy about freedom, and I use this philosophy in regards to most things: it's kind of a paradox. We are free and we are bound.
Everything is kind of a paradox. Illusion is truth. Illusion is not truth. Then again, I may be lying.

"Free Will" means that there is not a discernable physical process that defines our feelings and desires. If there was a discernable physical process, then, given the resources, we could literally "determine" the will of the person, and therefore their actions, thus debasing the theory of "Free Will".

Literally the definition of Free defies physical casuality. To say our Will is Free is to say that it is not Controlled (ie Determined). That is to say there aren't factors that explicitly determine our Will. Which means that there is no discernable physical process that gives rise to our Will.

So, essentially, to claim "Free Will" we are claiming that our Will is actually a supernatural phenomenon.

Thus, there is no argument. There is only the question: is there a discernable physical process that takes place in our brain that gives rise to our Will?

If yes, no Free Will. If no, then either we still haven't found the physical process, or it doesn't exist. If it doesn't exist, then our will is "Free" and "magic" (ie supernatural)

It is a fact that there is no complete free will. We have free will to a certain point. With the evidence of wireless brain wave technology to send signals to muscles and brain activity we can be forced to do things against our will.

The intelligence community has demonstrated the ability to numb and waken various sections of the brain using wireless brain wave technology.
~John

Sorry I have not read most of the post in this thread. The following is what I think when it comes to this question which this thread asks.
We may not have any Free Will. I feel the brain structure of an individual is fairly stable in the sense of memories are created and memories are lost (chemical reactions (creation of various hormones), damage accumulation etcetera - all are predetermined). Our personalities and such are surely destined. We can always, providing we have the capability, know what path electrons are going to take in a person's brain based on the structure and other factors as the person has thoughts. Everthing in this existance is probably fated, whether going to Subway to get a sub to eat, overall interaction, interaction with other matter (People, things, whatever).

Archive of this topic may be found at bjklein.com ->


I think the common Idea of free will like a causeless "thing" from nowhere is nonsense. Our consciousness needs informations and experience to act and this limits our potential. But does our consciousness really acts free or is it a marionette? Does older parts of our Brain choose before we choose? Whats to say about the Libet experiments? Weeks ago I heard that he told the test persons to wait for "the urge to move" and not only to move their fingers at will.

The new book, "Blink", shows how "reactive" and how little our "thinking" has anything to do with even logic, much less "free will". It is a terrifying book, as to the extent we "do what we know, later, is contrary to what we think we should do", and "why we do it".

Completely aside from the question of absolute determinism, this book indicates that we are barely conscious at all, in terms of regulating what we say and do, and *how* we do it, pointing out the bizarre effects our behavior has on others.

In one example, it pointed out that by observing just the tone of voice and its interpretation as to "dominance" vs. "concern", in two ten-second slices of physicians talking with their patients, you could pretty well predict which physicians were going to be sued by their patients, and which were not. It all revolved around the patients' perceptions of being "talked down to" vs. being "cared about", and none of them, patients of physicians, really knew what they were doing, or what it meant.

boundlesslife

Wow "Blink" actually looks like a really bad ass informative book.

I think my mom would shit herself if I asked for money for yet another book.

[tung]

Wow "Blink" actually looks like a really bad ass informative book.

There's no end to them (books like that), it seems.

Blink's author is a big fan of Paul Eckman ("Emotions Revealed") who spent 40 years studying the interactions of facial expressions and emotions, and how to perceive very subtle levels of these in yourself and others, so as to reduce your reactivity and see others' reactivity coming at you quicker.

Eckman's work is cited by Blink's author, who comes on strong as one of the book's advocates, in the endorsements on the back of "Emotions Revealed".

Eckman, in turn, has been hooked in with Daniel Goleman ("Emotional Intelligence" and a book on "Combating Destructive Emotions", to just mention two of them)

In Goleman's work with the Dali Lama, Goleman explores how to get the best out of Buddhism without the "religiosity" that you usually run into, by scientifically studying people who have done a lot of meditation.

They found that certain very highly trained monks could outperform experienced law enforcement officials, FBI agents, etc. in recognizing emotions, due to their calm and unperturbed states of minds, without knowing anything specifically about Eckman's work at all.

Jeff Hawkins ("On Intelligence") is not exactly intertwined with Goleman, Eckman and "Blink's" author (Don't have his name stuck in my mind well enough yet, and this is a quick middle-of-the-night posting), but his way of looking at how the brain processes associative data in hierarchical levels has a great "fit" with these other guys, and sometimes I feel as if I'm barely "scratching the surface" of what's coming along out there.

Why is it that I only get around to looking at this stuff in the middle of the night?

It would be a lot better if this board were accessible to me by a "side-screen" at the edge of my retina, and I could do text-entry by muttering to myself while other people I work with wonder if I'm crazy, with a far better voice-recognition system than Dragon's "Naturally Speaking" software?

Eventually, with things like this and all of these books "on-line" via some ultra-cheap subscription "library", we should be able to come as close to "wiring our brains together" as is achievable, without actually uploading.

Maybe there is going to be a "singularity"? Soon?

One of the most fascinating things to me, about this board, is the number of people who are checking in from all over the globe, (for example) from the middle of China, Indonesia, and other parts of the world that are central to the economic "explosion" that's about to shake the foundations of tradition and turn things upside down in an "Alice in Wonderland" way, at the same time that technology accelerates upward. Perhaps out of that will come a loosening of the bonds of mysticism that have historically gripped people's imaginations about their "destinies", and have stood in the way of intensified focus on reality-based life extension.

In some other posting here (didn't comment on it) there is a discussion on how to attract "wealth" into the sphere of advancing life extension, and wondering about why wealthy people aren't more at the forefront of this. I've been intrigued and horrified about this, myself, but it seems to be a very real phenomenon, and I could theorize about it, but time doesn't permit that right now, so I'll leave you with one very real example of what seemed reasonable, and turned out to be probaby one of the most crazy notions I've ever had.

In the early days of cryonics, there were rumors that Howard Hughes was "interested in cryonics", and it seemed reasonable, because he was a pretty independent person, but no-one had any definite info about what he might or might not be doing. In the process of trying to patch together some kind of better-organized way of approaching the procedures of getting people into suspension, my partner and I cranked out an early "procedures manual" (100+ pages) on what to do, and how to do it. It's on-line as an archive at the below link, just as a curiosity item for those who might want to see it.

Instructions for the Induction of Solid State Hypthermia in Humans

Our thought was, "Hughes probably has his own set-up, but if he looks at this, perhaps he'll see that we think this is an important idea and are diligent about trying to upgrade information on how to approach it. That, at least, might get us in the door as janitors, in his hidden "Los Alamos" project to perfect suspended animation. And, if he doesn't have his own set up, perhaps it would awaken his imagination as to the importance of doing something concrete about this idea, and he'll either start up his own operation, or throw some support our way. So, upon completion of this "book", we mailed off a copy to his last known address.

We never received a reply, and later, realized that by this time, his approaching death and state of mind were probably at such a low level that he never saw this book, but also, it was so crude as a "first effort" that even if he had been active, the level of other involvements he might be keeping up with would have seemed so monumental and urgent that this wouldn't have attracted his attention, or his internal bureaucracy would have tossed it in the trash without even thinking twice.

Further, people who have amassed great fortunes are surrounded by infrastructures of others, many of whom still almost certainly harbor mystical notions, who would make fun of the wealthy people if they even entertained the idea of cryonics. They have their own "network" limitations, in this way. Disney, for example, might have commented that he found the notion of "being frozen" interesting, but can you picture the opposition he would have run into, in trying to actually do something about it? It would have been monumental, I think.

One other example, and I'll get "back to sleep". At one point in time, my partner and I had moved to Lake Tahoe, California, the goal being to "live in the mountains". (At that time, we felt we had pretty well taken care of immediate priorities in terms of cryonics, and others more capable of us were in the process of moving way beyond anything we'd contributed up to that time.) So, in the process of figuring out how to make a living up there, we formed a partnership (corporation) with one of the most successful real estate agents in town, and established a property management office. I'll call this gal "Betsy" (a pseudoname) for convenience.

It was after closing down for the day, one afternoon, when we were sitting around the office, talking about our past, and we asked Betsy, "What did you do, before you got into real estate?" and she said, laughing, "I was a chemist!"

"A chemist!" we excalimed. "Really! What kind of chemistry were you working on?"

She laughed again. "You'll never believe this," she said. "We were working for a crazy guy named Johan Bjorksten, who was doing research on the aging process. It seemed as if he was 'scared of dying'. We all laughed at him behind his back, but he paid our salaries, so we treated the whole thing as if it was serious."

What Betsy didn't know was that a decade earlier, we had been corresponding with Johan Bjorksten about reprinting some of his nutrition related advice in a cryonics magazine we were publishing for the organization with which we were then involved, and had thought that his work with proteolytic enzymes was one of the most important, promising areas to be "pushed" in anti-aging research.

We never told her about our earlier connection with Bjorksten, who was finally "run out of business" by the FDA, who told him he couldn't both sell vitamins and publish about them at the same time. These were the very early days of life extension, way before LEF, and the FDA could throw its weight around any way it wanted. Anyway, Bjorksten had to curtail his research for lack of funding and it was never continued, even thought he reported very encouraging, early results.

Jeeze, this posting got long!

It's probably full of typos.

Sorry about that, and for other glitches, but no time to review them right now!

boundlesslife

If there is no "God" (an omnipotent being which created and transcends the limitation of our multiverse), then there isn't a previous agent who has ultimate control over my *will*. The infinite number of causes which have come together to create *me*, a being that constitutes one unique possibility in the vastness of existence, do not constitute control, but only influence. To say that we are in some way determined by the universe is merely to say that we are a part of the universe, a tautology.

When thinking of yourself as an agent, think *Nexus*. [thumb]

Sartre also comes to mind when thinking about this classic debate. Was he successful in reconciling his brand of existentialism with the emerging historicism of his time? An open question as he undoubtedly has his critics, but still, his agenda lives and fights on.

IMO no, we are the sum of everything that has went into us. We are our genetic makeup + the experices of our lives.... a man is confronted with a dilema, kill another man to surivive. His brain adds up the reasons to do it based on his life experience and then subtracts the reasons not to do it. The bigger reasoning wins and he makes that choice(if you choose to call it that thats your progative).

Ofc this can be followed back as far as you like. As far back to THE choice. Exist or Do Not Exist. Wich in the immortality world, is the only question that truely matters.

There are great discussion going on here and I have some questions that keep kicking in my head and i am sure someone can amswer them to some degree...lets see...

We know electricity is a current that runs our lives...we still dont know with all our science what electricity really is? I know its a force but what is that force and why does it have to "run" as soon as it is turned on?

We see that space is empty...but science (new physics) tells us that its filled with intelligent force (waves, particles, strings or membranes or to put it simple "intel and info") that are beyond logical understanding? Our Rationality doesn't apply to it! WHY?

You sense darkness in the absence of light...a cat doesn't know that phenomenon or what it means to be dark as she can see in infrared! She must be living in a different world and yet the same.

A dog can sense strange things at distances that have no physical relation or connection ...why? Where is she getting all that info from?

Why are there only positives or negatives in our world...why not 3 or 4 more variables? (Why not hogogatives, penogatives, tologatives and genogatives for that matter?)

Dolphins can communicate even when they are in two different water-tanks...why?

Why everything in the Universe wants to connect and communicate whether its sub-atomic particles (mind it they are very non-physical) or giant Whales in the ocean (the most physical) WHY?

Why not be happy with NOT CONNECT and NOT COMMUNICATE AT ALL? WHY

What is your life...why are you alive? Why is it that all of your cells "want to live" instead of "really want to die" and maintain their health without your direct interference for a very specific time? Who wrote this mind blowing system of Genome, chromosomes or DNA, it looks like a smart computer program within a biological computer ...surely it can put any computer to shame, as it is more than just a computer in any functional way!

Why is our "time" moving from "past to future" and not "future to past"?

From Viruses to Giant 500 year old trees...Why is that every "living" object "wants to live and grow" instead of "dont give a rat if they live or die"?

Who has put all that unshakable intelligence there and WHY?

People sometimes tell me evolution did all that! but what i am failing to understand is that "WHO told evolution to just do all that" or did evolution just one day decided out of the blues and said "hey...why not create everything in perfect order with total interdependency and in a holographic way so everything looks and feels real but if you probe it deeper you just find "intelligence and information" and nothing else at all"...which is at the heart of our known reality isn't it?
What type of free will is that?

[quote]we still dont know with all our science what electricity really is? [/quote]

False, we know very well what electricity is. Do you understand the principles of electron exchange and conductivity?

[quote]
We see that space is empty...but science (new physics) tells us that its filled with intelligent force (waves, particles, strings or membranes or to put it simple "intel and info") that are beyond logical understanding? Our Rationality doesn't apply to it! WHY? [/quote]

All false, starting at the last two dependent assumptions; reason certainly does apply to the understanding of the universal principles of physics, suggesting that we are ignorant of sufficient detail to form a *perfectly* rational hypothesis is not the same as being incapable of understanding those principles rationally.

As for the first set of conflated assumptions, no one has established the parameters for defining and proving an intelligent force. This is just fantasy not physics. As for *empty* you really need to clarify of what you are speaking. Space is not empty of force anywhere, it is empty of matter in most regions. Matter can be considered only one form or manifestation of energy but energy exists in a variety of forms and space is filled with some of those forms, like radiation, electromagnetism, light, gravity, etc.

Anyway why would you suggest that intelligence and information are beyond rational understanding?

Don't you understand that to be a contradiction?

First you must demonstrate why something that is *information* is beyond reason and also why intelligence is not also rational.

[quote]You sense darkness in the absence of light...a cat doesn't know that phenomenon or what it means to be dark as she can see in infrared! She must be living in a different world and yet the same.
[/quote]

False, a cat responds to light intensity just as you do. Just because felines are more sensitive to the infrared end of the visible light spectrum doesn't for a second mean they can't tell the difference between light and dark. This is not even logically consistent as they are even more sensitive to such differences by the example you provide.

Anyway if you want simple evidence of this just shine a flashlight into a cats' face. Aside form their natural reflexive response look closely at their pupils. You will detect the exact same contraction and dilation effect of their pupils that is just like in your own response to exposure to changes in light intensity. You are simply confusing a lot of ideas here.

[quote]A dog can sense strange things at distances that have no physical relation or connection ...why? Where is she getting all that info from? [/quote]

False. A dog has a different set of reliant senses but the factors are still physical. They process auditory and olfactory information with far greater sensitivity than we do but this is still physical. If you want to assert that dogs are somehow telepathic then you must demonstrate this with fact not fiction or mere conviction.

[quote]Dolphins can communicate even when they are in two different water-tanks...why? [/quote]

Simple, sound carries. They are sensitive to high frequency sonar and can hear one another at very great distances in the ocean too, so why not in separate tanks?

[quote]
Why everything in the Universe wants to connect and communicate whether its sub-atomic particles (mind it they are very non-physical) or giant Whales in the ocean (the most physical) WHY?
[/quote]

False. There are repellent as well as attractive forces in nature. Like charges repel opposite charges attract. Like polar magnetic fields repel opposite polar fields attract for example.

Gravity may be one exception to this rule but please don't make anymore assumptions about these subjects till you take a little time to study them in greater depth.

Communication for example is more complex than you are grasping and not everything communicates. To communicate there must be a transfer or exchange of shared understanding. Whales seek to communicate with other whales of the same or similar species but they don't necessarily seek to communicate with killer sharks or giant squid.

[quote]Why not be happy with NOT CONNECT and NOT COMMUNICATE AT ALL? WHY [/quote]

Yes why not? Please try and answer this for yourself without resorting to mystical necessity. There are very good reasons for communication when there also exists a *common interest*.

[quote]What is your life...why are you alive? [/quote]

As you are consistently doing these are two very different questions and not entirely dependent on one another. I heard said the other day:

"What you are is encrypted in your genes at birth and unchanged throughout your normal life (*the exception being mutational disorders resulting from exposure to viruses, toxins or radiation) but WHO you are is constantly changing so long as we are alive. Who we are is never the exactly the same from one day to the next."

What is life is still being resolved and in some respects is both a semantic debate as well scientific. Why you are alive is a philosophical and metaphysical inquiry that has much more to do with our own psychological needs for affirmation and validation.

Basically your first question could be scientific the second can never be and is really psychological.

[quote]Why is it that all of your cells "want to live" instead of "really want to die" and maintain their health without your direct interference for a very specific time? [/quote]

False unless you are resorting to fatalism and if so it is incumbent on you to prove predeterminism.

[quote]Who wrote this mind blowing system of Genome, chromosomes or DNA, it looks like a smart computer program within a biological computer ...surely it can put any computer to shame, as it is more than just a computer in any functional way! [/quote]

No one. Why is that so hard to grasp for you?

[quote]Why is our "time" moving from "past to future" and not "future to past"? [/quote]

This is an interesting debate in physics and not as yet resolved. What is time and what are its basic properties are not defined by its apparent directionality, that is relativistic (not universally constant) and anyway time may move backwards relative to us in an antimatter universe and anti-matter particles created in particle accelerators do exhibit such stange properties but that is a whole different discussion.

Please take a little more time to study these ideas in depth before making too many more assumptions and trying to draw conclusions.

[quote]From Viruses to Giant 500 year old trees...Why is that every "living" object "wants to live and grow" instead of "dont give a rat if they live or die"? [/quote]

We don't know this but you might try reading Dawkins' Selfish Gene for a better understanding of the answer to your question.

[quote]Who has put all that unshakable intelligence there and WHY? [/quote]

No one and again these are two very different questions. The answer to the second can very from there is no reason to it is up to us to create one but the basis of the question is at best philosophical and psychological not necessarily scientific.

[quote]People sometimes tell me evolution did all that! but what i am failing to understand is that "WHO told evolution to just do all that" or did evolution just one day decided out of the blues and said "hey...why not create everything in perfect order with total interdependency and in a holographic way so everything looks and feels real but if you probe it deeper you just find "intelligence and information" and nothing else at all"...which is at the heart of our known reality isn't it?[/quote]

Why do you insist on a Designer?

Does it provide you comfort to believe that where we find complexity there also must exist a craftsman for it?

There is no logical necessity for there to be a designer. That does not mean there isn't one but this argument proves nothing about the existence of such a designer only the need for many people to believe that one exists. Such a need is an example of a psychological dependency not a validation of the idea.

[quote]What type of free will is that? [/quote]

Yes, what type indeed? Do you not see the inconsistencies and contradictions of your premises?

Interestingly enough this is the only question you have asked that even addresses the debate here and until you asked it I was uncertain you actually have understood the topic. Most of the rest is a non sequitur when not simply the result of misinformation.

SO let me ask you in turn: Do you think free will exists or is the universe the predetermined result of the action of a prime mover?

If you accept that freewill exists then there is no dependence on there being a designer if the latter then you have no freewill and nothing matters. All good and evil, all action is the result of the designer and you lack the choice to do anything different than you do. With that loss goes any responsibility for ones action.

Do you think we are responsible for what we do, right and wrong?

Without freedom of choice (freewill) there is no responsibility, terrorism would be as justified as philanthropy.

Please take a little time to delve deeper into the discussion as the ramifications of the debate are important.

This question you ask is important although your premise is questionable, if not down right false:
[quote]Why are there only positives or negatives in our world...why not 3 or 4 more variables? (Why not hogogatives, penogatives, tologatives and genogatives for that matter?) [/quote]

There are not only positives and negatives in the world. Do you really understand the concept of variables? How about the cost benefit ratio of lesser evil?

*Maybe* life is not so simple as to be defined in such simplistic black and white terms?

There are also imaginary numbers and the search for a new form of logic is at the heart of the need to go beyond digital language for the development of software for quantum computers. Perhaps emotion defies logical algorithmic encryption because it depends on some of those variable you seem to be assuming don't exist.

The development of other numbering systems has been around for along time and this higher mathematical study is still proceeding at a remarkably fevered pitch. I am not as familiar with it as I might like but I am aware of the investigation.

*i inserted the italic modification in anticipation of rebuttal

Thankyou Lazarus
You are good!
I dont think there is a single designer or creator arpart from the creation, what i do think, knowing what i have studied in particle physics, is that observer is the observed as well as the (act of) observation. Which frankly leaves me nowhere and everywhere!
Keeing that in mind I dont feel the need of any psychological hook (designer) to hang my identity on and neither need any validation of my being, as i am the proof of my existence! Like the taste is in the pudding...actually a friend of mine asked me all those questions and he is not very well read in physics or philosophy for that matter and i didn't know how to answer them.
But you have pointed out some valid contradictions in those question and also motivated me to look for further information on what you have presented, i like it! Well i will study a little more and then get back into discussion. Somebody gave me a list of books to check out, please share your thoughts on them ...are they a good read?
You can check these books at amazon.com and read their reviews as well. i wont write here the all of authors' names as you can find it at amazon by searching the name of the book....thanx

Quantum Consciousness by Stephen Wolinsky
The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene
The Great Beyond (Beyond Strings - M-Theory or Membrane Theory)
The Field : The Quest for the Secret Force of the Universe by Lynne McTaggart
Wholeness and the Implicate Order By David Bohm
The Disappearance of the Universe by Gary Renard
Extra-dimensional Universe: Where The Paranormal Becomes Normal
SQ (By Dana Zohar)
Seth Speaks:About the Eternal Validity of The Soul. By Jane Roberts
The Nature of Personal Reality By Jane Roberts
Unknown Reality Vol 1 By Jane Roberts
Unknown Reality Vol 2 By Jane Roberts
The Nature of the Psyche and its Human Expression By Jane Roberts
Nature of the Individual and Mass Events By Jane Roberts
Dreams Evolution and Value Fulfilment Vol 1 By Jane Roberts
Dreams Evolution and Value Fulfilment Vol 2 By Jane Roberts
The Way Towards Health By Jane Roberts (for more info www.sethcenter.com or org)
Adventures Beyond the Body By William Bhulman
What the Bleep do We Know? DVD
The Elegant Universe DVD
I have been told by a friend that the Seth (Jane Roberts) books are being deciphered at YALE University and some bigtime physicists are working on them. I wonder what do they want to decipher?

Lester Long

I was just wondering on what you said and i started thinking that People die, things die or perish new stuffs comes to take its place, animals eat each other for food, we are killing nature by screwing up forests and other natural resources without taking any responsibility.

We also kill everything for food with the exception of killing homosapiens, that is our own kind for food and shelter and accidents happen people and the rest die, calamities come and wipe out civilizations sometimes...seems like death and birth are way of replenishing the system. This is how the SYSTEM is! Then why dont we understand that...death is as normal and natural as life! why do we feel and show joy on births and mourn on deaths. there are so many things in nature that we have no control over and yet we fool ourselves by magnifying the tiny bit of control that we have in our lives thinking that we have free will?

So why are we saying that right or wrong should be there? I dont see any need for it cause although we are holding up our morality and ethics since the dawn of religions or may be even before, it still hasn't stopped us from killing each other or screwing up the planet for that matter. Then even the bigger question that science has to contend with and produce an answer for is " Do we survive after physical body dies?" If i dont survive then there is no remorse, guilt, morality, right or wrong because there is no meaning to my existence as i am just a wheel in a car and when i am done i will be done away with...as simple as that...why not have some fun killing a few people in differents ways, rape a few females of different age group, explode a bomb and see how people fly around...could be exciting as i have nowhere to go after this....really it wont matter to me if i am a nice law abiding moral citizen or a free man to do as i please before my limited time is up... so i must then allow my animal instincts full freedom before my meaningless 9 to 5 existence is over.

So thousand of people die every day and even more are born...who cares if some of them die from my hands ...they have to die anyway so probably i am just an agent doing the system's work for it and eventually i may be killed too as i am going to die one way or the other. What difference does it make if someone kills me or an earthquake wipes me out?

You talk about chioce , free will, right and wrong but what can you gather from the status quo of the world and its inhabitants right now. i see women running their own genes and men running their own genes, and all the cascading effects that result from the actions of those gene ridden people, hence john gray got a chance to make millions by writing that Men mars women venus stuff . Anyway our chioces are not absolute choices or absolute free will...its more like alternatives like A or B or C is given but you choose "freely" one of them....sorry bro i cant see this as having free will what ever the word means!

You tell me what do you think? Should i start packing up all that C4 and head toward a shopping mall and also get a nice appartment at a far place from city where i will keep my girls... [thumb]

Edited by lesterlong, 15 May 2006 - 09:53 AM.

Anyone interested in free will, as well as evolutionary psychology and the cognitive biases and heuristics literature, may find my new paper to be of interest. It is called:

The View from Nowhere Through a Distorted Lens: The Evolution of Cognitive Biases Favoring Belief in Free Will

And you can find it here:

http://people.wm.edu...viewnowhere.doc
http://people.wm.edu...viewnowhere.htm
http://people.wm.edu...viewnowhere.pdf

Any feedback is, of course, GREATLY appreciated.

Unfortunately, at this point our knowledge is too limited to say for sure if we have free will or if we dont. I agree with DonSpaton about not being determined but influenced by the surrounding factors when we make any kind of decision in our lives, however, I don't think that the question of free will can be answered with certainty until we thoroughfly learn our own human nature, where we came from, how matter appeared, etc. I believe that once we find an answer (and don't doubt it) to all the "big" questions, the myriad of
the smaller questions should be answered with ease. At this point it's impossible to tell, we can only speculate.


P.S. that guy chip (at the beginning of this discussion) wins the demagogue of the century award. [lol]

Hmm... That's a toughy the subjective me says "hell yes I have free will!", but the logical me say "wtf, how is that possible? how complex of an illusion must this be? where does a 'random' value come from? I don't have free will" - So, until someone can show me exactly how a random value comes into existance with no connection to the previous workings of the universe... I will have to agree with the logical me.

I would suggest that it is the rational, logical, and objective you that says "hell yes". I'm not sure I understand what you refer to as 'random values' (I have not backtracked far enough to find it I presume). I do not think of values as random or situational. Values are based upon principles, and principles are chosen. The ability to make rational choices based upon your faculties of reason is what gives you free will.

Ok, what I mean by random values is exactly that... random values, for instance, A random number generator on a computer needs to be seeded, why would it be any different than the human brain (in that aspect)? Besides the supposed "Big Bang" nothing can come from nothing, therefore a random number, atomic state, electron spin direction etc, has to come from somewhere "A seeding event" and that seeding event had to have come from somewhere else... so unless someone someday comes up with a way to produce random numbers or observe something that has no connection with reality... the logical and rational me will always say: "No I do not have free will"

You may be wondering, what do 'random values' have to do with free will? Well, free will is where you make the decisions; you decide to look left, right, up, or down. However, I see that as just a byproduct of chaos (seemingly unrelated events) coming into order just like a snowflake. A snowflake can sometimes be of a very complex design, but that complex design came into existence from trillions of water molecules that themselves had no intention on taking part in this super-complex of molecules however the laws of physics put them in the right place at the right time. I think the same thing has happened with consciousness. Now, if you sit and watch people in a mall, school, or some other gathering interact with each other, it may seem to be random and controlled by their free will, but how would a thought such as "suddenly wanting a cookie" come into existence?, even though it may seem random, that is just because the extremely complex "snowflake" in your head it constantly processing input, running through thoughts and imagery and then suddenly comes across "cookie" through a web of related thoughts, and realizes that there is a store selling cookies down the hall.

Free Will requires randomness, randomness is impossible.

Ok, my mistake, I was using the term 'values' in a very different sense. This 'seeding' of our consciousness comes from the perception of the physical world using our senses and integrating this information into abstractions and concepts. It is at this conceptual level of conciousness that we are able to choose our values (roughly a set of principles on which we base our actions). The fact that we are able to freely make choices and act accordingly is to me the only important sense in which we have free will.

Yeah, I just needed to explain myself better, sorry for the confusion.

Free Will..., Do we have it?

In a pre-determinism sense, I dont care and I don't think it matters. In a practical sense it does matter, and we do not have total free will, some people have it more than others, and that is why some people are fat and have unwanted addictions.

Firstly, it does not matter in the pre-determinism sense at all, not im my opinion. Freedom has an underlying value, and that is what matters. The underlying value of freedom is that it allows us to satisfy motives, any motives whatsoever, that is what matters. Of course it is natural to have an inherent motive for optimal freedom, but the pre-determinism argument doesn't disrupt the kind of practical freedom which we have to a limited extent for other reasons.

In the practical sense, we do not have perfect free will and it does matter, because our extent of free will determines our capacity to act to our benefit. When I say act to our benefit, I really mean act rationally (or as rationally as we consciously can).

What is rational action? A rational action is to act upon thoughts which we think are rational, relative to the aim of doing the best thing we can do at any moment.

I say “think” because a person is not always aware of the action which they may undertake at the time which will be best for them. Furthermore, of the potential actions which a person considers, they do not know the precise costs and benefits of each potential action and the best they can ever do is to predict the probabilites of the nature and extent of these things.

So, the function for a rational action is as follows.

perceived probability of benefit(s) minus perceived probability of cost(s) equals perceived net benefit. And the considered action of the highest perceived net benefit is the rational action.

A rational action can potentially be from an extremely irrational consideration of action, but it will still be a rational action as long as the person thought that the action was rational. In this case the action would be rational but the thought would not be.

When a person always acts rationally then they have free will, for clearly it is never justifiable to act less rationally than an alternative.

But clearly people do not always act rationally e.g gamblers or homeless people who do not have the self-discipline to get themselves out of their situations, thus I think that free will is something which people naturally have to limited degrees, some more than others.

Upon some revision of my earlier views, I've come to be convinced the free will is impossible. The human bodies are governed by universal principles, and they ultimately dictate what our desires and actions are. That would also include our consciousness, which is a product of our minds. Furthermore, as the Libet's experiments suggest(google libet free will), our conscious feelings and actions arise AFTER the brain had subconsciously initiated them. That would hold true for every single conscious experience that an individual has - the subconscious brain is the initiator.

For example, why am I writing all of this? Did I "choose" to type these words? According to my own human nature, I possess the sense of an immense curiosity of the world around me, and attempting to describe my own self is certainly a large part of this curiosity. Now, I wasn't responsible for instilling the sense of wonder inside of my mind, but I am acting in accordance with it almost in a slave-like way. My brain has instincts, analytical compartments, inner forces and desires, and it has an amazing ability to understand itself (or at least strive to). Therefore here I am, expliciting my thoughts, acting out in full accordance with the laws of the universe...

It might seem a bit pessimistic to realize that I have no free will, but ultimately, it doesn't feel so. As Bertrand Russell pointed out, "power consist of being able to achieve the desired effects, and it doesn't matter if they are caused or uncaused."

Upon some revision of my earlier views, I've come to be convinced the free will is impossible. The human bodies are governed by universal principles, and they ultimately dictate what our desires and actions are. That would also include our consciousness, which is a product of our minds. Furthermore, as the Libet's experiments suggest(google libet free will), our conscious feelings and actions arise AFTER the brain had subconsciously initiated them. That would hold true for every single conscious experience that an individual has - the subconscious brain is the initiator.

"I" was worrying over this earlier today while reading The Quest for Consciousness. The vast bulk of mental processes are unconscious and a percept only gains attentional focus a measurable time *after* the activation of the bulk of the neural activity that underlies it. But then there is feedback at various levels in the brain, and I think this is very important. A generated thought will become part of the input for subsequent neural activity, resulting in an activation feedback loop. I have a feeling that this (phenomenological?) loop is the brain talking to itself, and maybe from this emerges our feeling of free will; it could simply be the activation pattern feeding back on itself over time.

Upon some revision of my earlier views, I've come to be convinced the free will is impossible. The human bodies are governed by universal principles, and they ultimately dictate what our desires and actions are. That would also include our consciousness, which is a product of our minds. Furthermore, as the Libet's experiments suggest(google libet free will), our conscious feelings and actions arise AFTER the brain had subconsciously initiated them. That would hold true for every single conscious experience that an individual has - the subconscious brain is the initiator.

"I" was worrying over this earlier today while reading The Quest for Consciousness. The vast bulk of mental processes are unconscious and a percept only gains attentional focus a measurable time *after* the activation of the bulk of the neural activity that underlies it. But then there is feedback at various levels in the brain, and I think this is very important. A generated thought will become part of the input for subsequent neural activity, resulting in an activation feedback loop. I have a feeling that this (phenomenological?) loop is the brain talking to itself, and maybe from this emerges our feeling of free will; it could simply be the activation pattern feeding back on itself over time.

Most certainly, various parts of the brain continuously intercommunicate, as the brain is an analog system. The conscious perception doesn't occur at every level of the brain activity, and only arises in some specific instances. For example, the whole control of blood circulation, heart beat and various other bodily functions are occuring subconsciously.

I have long ceased to perceive myself as "one"; rather I am a combination of various organs within my physical body, which intercommunicate together based on inherited laws and principles.