Free Will

[romansh]

Rodge,

You view the world as mechanistic, I get that.

You seem to think you are not mechanistic ... I get that too.

 

Does your consciousness respond to cause and effect? Speaking personally, sometimes very definitely but then most of the time I am completely unaware of what those causes might be even if they exist. Does this mean I have free will?

 

So you believe you do stuff for absolutely no reason (without cause)?

[Rodge]

Romansh, I believe my human consciousness is influenced by and limited by physical cause-and-effect. But genuine choices can remain. My free will act of picking a choice is the cause of my action. I hope this answers your questions.

 

Let me give an example. Yesterday, I was mall-walking to get some exercise. At one point, I realized that the pace of my steps matched the beat of music being piped over the mall's loudspeakers. With that realization, I had a choice, either to declare my independence by changing my pace or to shrug off the coincidence by continuing the same pace. I chose to continue my pace. I then realized that, as I continued walking, I would from time to time become aware of whether or not my pace matched the song's, and each time I would have a choice of whether or not to alter my pace, whether or not my pace matched the song's. And I was convinced that there was no way someone could have predicted with certainty whether I would alter or maintain my pace each time that happened. And I, in fact, did sometimes alter my pace after that, and sometimes maintained my pace. This is a trivial example, but to me it was strong evidence that my choices were the product of my human consciousness's free will, and not any mechanical cause-and-effect.

[romansh]

Rodge

 

Yes I agree we make conscious and unconscious choices. (sort of)

 

Now are you arguing your conscious choices are somehow independent of cause or that being simply unaware of the causes is free will? Chaos theory ... a fully deterministic concept shows we cannot fully predict the future and that is in relatively simple systems. So how on Earth would you expect to make fully accurate predictions about the future?

 

Predictability is not a requirement for the absence of free will.

 

So no, you did not really answer my question.

Edited March 3, 2016 by romansh

[romansh]

Here is a very simple mechanical system behaving chaotically.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U39RMUzCjiU

[Rodge]

Romansh,

 

I am talking about theoretical predictability — the presence of complete information and the mental/computing power to instantly digest it and produce a prediction. My argument is that no amount of physical data would allow the accurate prediction of human free will choice. I realize that some people make a big deal about quantum randomness, but I'm not one of them. It is my impression that the randomness averages out when you get to bigger scale events, and the quantum randomness doesn't really affect how my keyboard operates in a completely non-random way. As to the pendulum experiment, I think it seems "chaotic" only to a casual observer. Are you suggesting that a computer program fed information about the physical facts about the two pendulums and their environment couldn't predict the sequence of flips and flops that we witness?

 

Now I recognize that my discussion of predictability is somewhat theoretical and abstract, but it does go to the question of whether or not something other than the laws of physics can determine outcomes.

[romansh]

So Rodge

 

You seem to be saying some systems are simple enough to be sufficiently predictable, but are not sufficiently predictable know exactly when through wear and tear, our keyboard will start behaving erratically.

 

The double pendulum is classical example of chaotic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_pendulum

So it is not just some casual observer ... our models are incomplete and the data insufficient to populate the models appropriately. You are pointing to Laplace's argument which has known to be false for at least a hundred years.

 

Laws of physics do not dictate anything, at least in my opinion; what they do is describe the cause and effect in this universe.

 

The central point remains ... a belief in free will denies cause and effect. Unless one is a compatibilist; then one just semantically ignores cause and effect.

Edited March 4, 2016 by romansh

[Rodge]

Romanss,

 

What happens when I press a key is predictable. If pressing the "A" key does not produce "A" on the screen, I do not think that some randomness has intruded into the process. I think that something has gone wrong mechanistically, and search for that transformed cause. But I don't want to get bogged down in a discussion of predictability and chaos theory. So, to your "central point": A belief in free will does not deny physical cause and effect. It requires only that a part of reality exists where cause and effect cannot be detected, because it is not operative.

[romansh]

It requires only that a part of reality exists where cause and effect cannot be detected, because it is not operative.

 

You will have to expand on this some more

[Rodge]

Romansh, Evolution has led to human consciousness, which is based on physical input and can activate physical results. But consciousness is not physical, indicated by the fact that the components of our experience of human consciousness are not part of the physical world (we experience color, but color does not exist in light waves; we experience sound but sound does not exist in changes in air pressure, etc.). It is this non-physical component of human experience that makes possible free will. But the inability to define or measure human consciousness does not mean that it does not exist, any more than the inability to define or measure God does not mean that a non-physical God does not exist. We need to recognize the limits of physical tools to measure only physical phenomena. To say that nothing can exist except physical phenomena is an assumption, not a fact. (Please note that I am not saying that any of this proves that God exists; just that we can't say for sure, one way or the other.)

[JosephM]

Personally, I believe in the physical, (the Newtonian world) we live in a world of effects only and there are no real causes to speak of, just preconditions . Everything actually originates from the that which is not manifested. In other words A does not cause B which causes C but rather ABC originates from that which is non physical. While there is what we call choice I suspect that Free will is an illusion to humans.

Joseph

 

PS. In my view, the universe is merely unfolding

Edited March 5, 2016 by JosephM

[romansh]

PS. In my view, the universe is merely unfolding

 

[romansh]

Romansh, Evolution has led to human consciousness, which is based on physical input and can activate physical results. But consciousness is not physical, indicated by the fact that the components of our experience of human consciousness are not part of the physical world (we experience color, but color does not exist in light waves; we experience sound but sound does not exist in changes in air pressure, etc.). It is this non-physical component of human experience that makes possible free will. But the inability to define or measure human consciousness does not mean that it does not exist, any more than the inability to define or measure God does not mean that a non-physical God does not exist. We need to recognize the limits of physical tools to measure only physical phenomena. To say that nothing can exist except physical phenomena is an assumption, not a fact. (Please note that I am not saying that any of this proves that God exists; just that we can't say for sure, one way or the other.)

 

In the sense that colour of an object is an illusion so is consciousness. Assuming consciousness gets its information through the senses, then consciousness is a reflection of historical events stretching back as far as 3 seconds. Our perceived consciousness is always not in the now.

 

Regarding consciousness, this short essay, I think, is best explains its illusory nature

 

Any non physical entity might exist, true. But if it does not interact with the physical, it may as well not exist. If it does interact with the physical, then it is subsumed into the physical.

[Rodge]

JosephM,

 

That is a rather mystical concept that I do not pretend to understand. But it is your subjective truth, and subjective truths can only be testified to, not proven or disproven.

[romansh]

JosephM,

 

That is a rather mystical concept that I do not pretend to understand. But it is your subjective truth, and subjective truths can only be testified to, not proven or disproven.

 

Can subjective truths be observed? Can the be deduced?

And if what you say is subjective itself ... so what? Joseph could be right and you will never know.

[Rodge]

Romansh,

 

Regarding: "In the sense that colour of an object is an illusion so is consciousness." How do you define "illusion"? If you mean "something that is not part of physical reality," you are trying to win an argument by giving words meanings that preclude argument. All I can say is that my experience of consciousness is real, and can be relied on to help me function.

 

Regarding the essay. That's a joke, right? Someone must work really hard to complicate something so obvious and everyday as the experience of human consciousness as a continual internal representation of the world around us and within our bodies.

 

Regarding: "If it does interact with the physical, then it is subsumed into the physical." What do you mean by "subsumed"? Are you again giving a word a meaning that precludes debate? How can you prove that the non-phsical can't have an impact on the physical?

 

Regarding: "Can subjective truths be observed? Can the be deduced?" Subjective truths are personal and internal. They cannot be observed. They can be testified to by the person experiencing them, but that testimony has to be filtered through human language, which has no words for what "green" looks like to me. The best we can do is get a glimpse of subjective truth through symbolic (metaphorical, poetic) language.

 

Finally, regarding: "Joseph could be right and you will never know." Joseph is surely "right" about his subjective truth. Only if he claims it to be an objective (universal) truth does the question of being objectively "right" arise. If he claims it to be true for everyone and can't produce physical verification, then I say he is 'wrong" to proclaim it as objective truth, but still "right" to testify to it as subjective truth.

[romansh]

Illusion, not what it seems.

 

Regarding Susan Blackmore's essay ... you seemed to miss her point completely. I have some people get it but most don't. I can't help wondering if some of us are wired differently.

 

If something responds to cause and effect, for me it is part of the physical world. This immaterial action would be picked up in our various types of calorimeters.

 

Regarding the proof word, sciency types don't bring proof to the table (despite what some of them may say) they bring evidence. And speaking of evidence what evidence do we have for the immaterial?

[Rodge]

Romansh, I'm not sure that it's helpful to play definitional games. But, since you asked, "proof" and "evidence" are different concepts. A consistency of evidence constitutes proof. But care must be taken in evaluating the evidence. If 20 people said Jesus had red hair, that is not evidence that Jesus had red hair. It is evidence that 20 people believed they had an experience that confirmed it. We have proof that they made the statements, not that the statements were true. Now, one could argue that there is no such thing as proof of anything, by defining "proof" in a certain way. But then the word would describe nothing and have no meaning.

 

With regard to calorimeters, you are back to arguing that non-material activity can't exist because it can't be measured by material tools, which is an assertion of an assumption, not a fact. Can you explain, logically, how calorimeters or any physical tool would be able to measure non-physical activity?

[romansh]

Romansh, I'm not sure that it's helpful to play definitional games. But, since you asked, "proof" and "evidence" are different concepts. A consistency of evidence constitutes proof. But care must be taken in evaluating the evidence. If 20 people said Jesus had red hair, that is not evidence that Jesus had red hair. It is evidence that 20 people believed they had an experience that confirmed it. We have proof that they made the statements, not that the statements were true. Now, one could argue that there is no such thing as proof of anything, by defining "proof" in a certain way. But then the word would describe nothing and have no meaning.

 

With regard to calorimeters, you are back to arguing that non-material activity can't exist because it can't be measured by material tools, which is an assertion of an assumption, not a fact. Can you explain, logically, how calorimeters or any physical tool would be able to measure non-physical activity?

 

 

We had over 200 y of proven Newtonian mechanics, that was until the falsifying observations started to become apparent. It urns out Newtonian mechanic is a fit for purpose set of laws.

 

Regarding, calorimeters you missed my point. If my calorimeter measurements of the physical world balance, ie the energy that goes in comes out, then the immaterial had no impact my actions or brain chemistry.

[Rodge]

Romansh,

 

"Energy" is a physical concept. Human consciousness may not consume energy, beyond that consumed by brain activity. I suppose that I'm arguing that human consciousness is the experience of brain activity that does not require additional energy to exist. I concede that science may prove my argument to be wrong, by showing an entirely physical construct of consciousness. But if I'm right, no one can ever use science to prove that I am right. That fact puts me at a disadvantage. I suppose the best I can do is to say that my argument is based on circumstantial evidence.

[romansh]

Romansh,

 

"Energy" is a physical concept. Human consciousness may not consume energy, beyond that consumed by brain activity. I suppose that I'm arguing that human consciousness is the experience of brain activity that does not require additional energy to exist. I concede that science may prove my argument to be wrong, by showing an entirely physical construct of consciousness. But if I'm right, no one can ever use science to prove that I am right. That fact puts me at a disadvantage. I suppose the best I can do is to say that my argument is based on circumstantial evidence.

 

You are still missing my point (a little) but you are definitely on the right track.

 

I think you have it backwards though. Science can never find evidence to disprove your theory, but one of the predictions of your process is that in these immaterial processes, the physical energy balance won't balance ... there will be too much or too little.

 

going to be away for a while ... correspondence will be erratic.

[minsocal]

Do you take action before he fact, or after the fact?

[romansh]

Do you take action before [t]he fact, or after the fact?

 

Me personally ... action occurs as a result of my brain chemistry etc,. So I suppose after the fact with respect to my brain chemistry etc.

[romansh]

There has been some discussion recently about people being "open minded", lacking belief etc recently.

 

A no free will point of view would be a little circumspect about describing people as open minded etc.

 

Now I don't think individuals can take credit in being open minded, sure or unsure etc ... in that I can't take credit for the configuration of my brain. Now at times I might think of myself as a bright, intelligent, spritely, good looking, plus sixty year old; these are things I cannot take credit for or be "blamed" for.

 

I might think I pull the levers behind being intelligent etc; this I think is far from the case.

[romansh]

John Searle of the Chinese Room thought experiment on the subject of free will:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rZfSTpjGl8

[JosephM]

Video seems to suggest we live our lives as if there is free will but with most probable thought process that it is an illusion.