Yes but the WAY it does so seems random. Sure it incorporates your beliefs and attitudes etc but whenever a decision is close and you can’t tell exactly way you picked A rather than B that’s just a random choice is it not? — khaled

No, it’s a lack of awareness. Randomness is just missing information about causal conditions, after all.

Your experiment seems to be proof that we allow unimportant decisions to be randomly determined. — Possibility

Well I guess that’s progress. — khaled

I’d like to clarify something, here: I’m not on either side of the free will or determinism fence (I’m not sure there is one). As far as I can tell, ALL actions are determined, but that doesn’t preclude a will that is free for anyone with the capacity to interact consciously with the potentiality, and therefore the causal conditions, of actions.

I understand that the view of causal chains from the other side of a collapsed potentiality wave leaves no evidence of our interaction at all. So the causal conditions I am aware of and interact with extend into the past as seamless causal chains, and those I am unaware of appear as ‘randomness’, as unknown causal chains.

Yet we often experience some freedom, at least, in a present act of choosing. So this freedom exists in a conscious experience, but not in the temporal event - it cannot be observed or measured in the brain even as it occurs. A physicalist would then be forgiven for concluding that no freedom exists, despite its existence as a quality of our experience.

I’m not a physicalist, though. I don’t believe reality is limited to the four physical dimensions. I think our ability to map all four dimensions in the first place (events across time and well beyond our own direct experience of the universe) should be evidence that we have the capacity at least to be aware of, connect with and collaborate with a fifth dimension. And I believe it is in that fifth dimension that the will (as the faculty by which one determines and initiates action) operates, and can be, for humans at least, unconstrained.

So let me get this straight, “something” can surely exist as long as there’s “something” else out there that can interact with it and/or react to it? Otherwise I can surely affirm that it does not exist because there is nothing else there to (kind of) ground it in reality? — Ignance

If by ‘exist’ you mean exist in spacetime, then yes. But don’t forget that you are ‘something’, too. And you also exist and have the capacity to interact beyond spacetime - to experience ‘yourself’ in the universe, as potential - and manifest reality to the extent that you are aware of, connecting and collaborating with the potential of all that you experience.

Something sentient or intelligent right? Because I thought the same exact thing, just not very sure how to flesh it out lol. — Ignance

Not the way you might think. The way I see it, potential interacts with potential as other, and in doing so continually manifests the energy event that IS the unfolding universe. The extent of initial awareness is simply ‘more’: something, and the universe acquires information about itself from there with every interaction.

As Rovelli says: “A physical system manifests itself only by interacting with another. The description of a physical system, then, is always given in relation to another physical system, one with which it interacts. A description of a system is, therefore, always a description of the information which a system has about another system.”

So the universe of energy events develops from an initial awareness of, connection and collaboration with this more in each of its one dimensional possibilities, incorporating what information it gains with each interaction. Many energy events such as photons cohere toward particles in this way, while the universe diversifies in all four physical dimensions, developing across space and time. Other energy events, by continuing to initiate awareness of, connection and collaboration with others, increase their capacity to distinguish between energy, force, direction, distance, duration: the laws of physics.

Chemical reactions develop a two dimensional awareness, with the capacity to distinguish between multiple interactions within a duration. Here begins the capacity for life...

I think it could potentially be one, but not actually one ‘thing’. For something to exist in actuality, its potential must interact or be observed/measured by something else as something ‘other’ than itself.

Why didn’t you then? That’s the problem here. You don’t know why you didn’t do you? So your decision to NOT control the impulse as opposed to control it must have been random right? For you don’t know why you made it. — khaled

First you say it’s an influence, then you say it’s an impulse. As it suits your argument, I guess. The thing is, in my view this was neither. It was a choice that I made, partly at random, partly based on arbitrary significance to me that at the time seemed interesting to run with and helped to narrow the choices. Nothing controlled my choice but me: I freely structured the causal conditions that determined the act of naming a city.

I know why I decided to name a city: because you asked me to name one, and I thought it might contribute to the discussion. Which one I decided to name and why I decided on that one instead of others was of no consequence to me, but my answers at least seemed important to you. If the process behind the decision was important to me, then I would have been more systematic and taken more time consciously deliberating over the significance of the act of choosing, the range of options to choose from and the significance of the option chosen. Obviously.

Most people simply don’t value why they make certain decisions. If you had then asked me to name a city in a particular part of the world, or a name one starting with a certain letter, I wouldn’t mind the fact that this decision would no longer be as ‘free’ as the previous one. I simply have more important things to spend my time consciously thinking about.

Your experiment seems to be proof that we allow unimportant decisions to be randomly determined. That doesn’t mean we would never know why we made any decision, or that every decision we make is random.

If you had said ‘name a city and I’ll fly you there tomorrow” or ‘name a city and I’ll drop a bomb on it’, I would not make that decision quite so randomly. It hasn’t affected the freedom: the act of choosing and the range of options to choose are unchanged - what’s changed is the significance of the option chosen. That I can decide to take back control over this decision in such instances appears to be proof of freedom somewhere in the decision process, at least. This is what I’ve been exploring...

What I think is overlooked is the meaning of "the will" - which is that functional component of the mind that makes decisions.. — Relativist

But I still think this definition is lacking in the detail it requires to answer the question of whether or not it can be ‘free’. If the will is whatever it is in our mind that makes decisions, then it could very well include the entire mind. After all, what component of the mind is NOT involved in making decisions?

The same when we talk about the will as ‘choice’. As I described earlier in the thread, ‘choice’ refers to several components: the act of choosing, the option chosen or the range/variety to choose from. Which of these is ‘free’? That depends on the decision to be made. In what decisions can all three of these remain wholly unconstrained?

It is at this point we should recognise that our freedom to choose or choose from is determined initially by our awareness of information.

Let’s try an experiment. Think of a city. Now try answering these questions:

Could you have thought of a city you didn’t know?
Could you have thought of a city you knew but didn’t occur to you?
What, in the end, influenced your decision to pick this city among the cities that occurred to you? And if you know, could you have controlled that influence?

Now say we had a truly random city generator generate the name of a city. What do you think the answers to these questions would be for it?

For me the answers are no, no, I don’t know and for the random city generator it would be no, no, I don’t know — khaled

These types of experiments are interesting to me, because my own internal experience appears to be different to what you’d expect, and I’m not sure if others have a similar experience.

When you say ‘think of a city’ my mind is filled with a broad range of thoughts: including images, names and rich memories. Even if I force myself to pick one, these other options don’t suddenly disappear. So when you ask your first question, I can think of a number of images of cities that I can’t remember the names of, as well as names of cities I know nothing about. At your second question, I can think of a number of cities that didn’t occur to me at the time I had chosen. The third question I can certainly come up with a credible answer (I chose London because I was remembering my trip there, as well as a movie I watched last night that happened to be set there - there were more thoughts in my mind of that city at the time I chose than any others). And to your fourth question, yes - I believe I could have controlled that influence and chosen a different city.

So I wonder: is this just me, or do others have a similar experience? I have noticed that my son and daughter have two very different ways of looking at the world, that I tend to refer to as the particle and the wave. My son would answer your questions above in the way you’d expect, whereas my daughter, much like me, would be reluctant to commit to one city in her mind, and would ‘collapse the potentiality wave’ only if and when it was necessary to actualise a choice (and even then would wish to reserve the right to change her decision, if she felt a different city would better suit the requirements). To a lot of you, this probably seems like a strange way to interact with the world. It wasn’t until I learned about QM that I realise just how their experiences differed from each other.

We can, though, say that what did happen, non randomly, trumps as actuality the claims such as "should have", making those to be of a fantasy world stance.
— PoeticUniverse

That seems fine to me. But I would struggle to add: "so there is no choice/decision/other possibility". I think I am viewing these things as existing in reality the same way I view all thoughts as existing in reality. The thoughts are unquestionably part of "reality", even if what is being imagined is not. — ZhouBoTong

This is the thing about ‘reality’. Actuality (the ‘reality’ to which @gods must be atheist seems to refer) includes observable/measurable 4D events, whereas the ‘reality’ I think you refer to also includes internal 4D events such as thoughts, emotions and memories. I think this is a common difference in perspective. Self reflection (internal experience) assures me that my thoughts are unquestionably part of reality - although I cannot produce for you any ‘proof’ that they occur except perhaps to tell you that they do. Or perhaps to show you in my ‘being’.

But how are we so sure these internal 4D events exist? Perhaps it’s because internal experience shows us how they interact with observable/measurable (actual) internal 4D events, such as heart rate.

I’m trying to work out what you’re arguing with me about. I agree with pretty much everything you’ve written here.

The fifth dimension? Wouldn't we just call it abstract thought? — ZhouBoTong

Sure, but does that help us to understand how it happens and how it interacts with everything else? I’m using ‘fifth dimension’ because it relates to other discussions and other areas of philosophy, where ‘abstract thought’ is too vague a concept. For instance, I’m of the belief that a sixth dimension (also involving abstract thought) structures our interactions, too - but that’s off topic here.

Once science has completed the chain of determinism then I will be able to get behind these sorts of ideas. Until then I will struggle to accept 'proof' of an absence of choice. — ZhouBoTong

I’m not arguing for absence of choice, and I certainly don’t believe there is any proof. All I have are my subjective experiences in relation to those of others.

Well the possibilities certainly exist in the abstract. I can admit that we can not know (yet?) whether they could have existed tangibly. — ZhouBoTong

That they exist ‘in the abstract’ is enough. Whether they could/would/should have existed tangibly is something we think/believe subjectively based on value/significance/logic/moral structures, and we internally interact with these abstract possibilities and integrate related information accordingly - even though they may have never had a tangible existence.

I am acutely aware of the possibilities that "I" can imagine. I am vaguely aware that there may be infinite possibilities that I have never imagined. — ZhouBoTong

Exactly.

This to me this portion has gone beyond knowing if there are possibilities. You seem to be suggesting that for me to "know" possibilities exist that I would have to "know" the exact outcome of every possible possibility. That is omniscience. Seems different. — ZhouBoTong

I’m not talking about ‘knowing’, though - I’m talking about subjective experience: awareness, connection and collaboration. Recognising that there are always infinite possibilities that we may never have imagined precludes any claim to ‘knowledge’. As Rovelli says in relation to QM and Information Theory: ‘There is always more information to be obtained about a system’. So i’m not suggesting that we have to know the exact outcome of every possible possibility - only that it’s out there as information to be sought.

I guess I am saying that science and philosophy need to be far more careful with their words if they expect a significant percent of the population to understand them. Heck I just learned from Terrapin Stationthat in this discussion "free" means 'not causally determined' but I doubt I could find a dictionary that includes that meaning (the plato.stanford philosophy site suggests Terrapin is right, but they keep it vague and refuse to even say anything as clear as "not causally determined"). — ZhouBoTong

This is part of the reason for this discussion. The dictionary definition of WILL says: ‘the faculty by which a person decides on and initiates action’, with these obvious assumptions built in that I’ve been trying to eliminate. The dictionary definition of FREE is ‘unconstrained’, and this is the one I have been working with throughout this discussion, despite the tendency for contributors to bring their own meanings with them - include conceptual definitions of ‘free will’ that allow them to delve into apologist style arguments to support its apparent existence.

I find myself agreeing quite often (with both sides), but still being thoroughly unconvinced.

Years ago I read someone on another site who said something along the lines of, "it seems likely there is no free will, but life operates better if we act as if there is" - they were more eloquent but you get the idea. I am still basically stuck in that view. — ZhouBoTong

I can relate to this, too. My aim here is not to argue one way or the other, but to tease out Hegel’s idea of dialectic process and reach some level of synthesis that is more convincing than compatibilism. I’ve found there are may people who’ve reached an externally manageable/arguable viewpoint that is nevertheless internally unconvincing.

The problem I have with this approach is that it leaves the "developing" part kinda up in the air. I am a compatibilist, so it seems odd to me to juxtapose pre-determined elements with a non-predetermined ability to develop. Because if it's not pre-determined, then what is it? In other word, what determines how the un-determined develops? — Echarmion

For this to make sense perhaps requires a long-winded explanation that has to do with an evolution of consciousness from initial awareness, connection and collaboration. I will say that I think pre-determined elements are not so much juxtaposed as the basis upon which this capacity to structure causal conditions can be developed.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I think humans are simply the organism that statistically said ‘yes’ more often to awareness, connection and collaboration throughout evolution. We have not evolved to maximise survival, but to maximise the capacity to be aware, to connect and collaborate with the more pre-determined elements of the universe that have long since closed off this capacity (by saying ‘no’ to further awareness, connection and collaboration). We’re not better in this regard - it’s just that statistically a small proportion of the universe was always going to retain this capacity on a broad scale. When you think about it, it’s actually an enormous responsibility: we possess apparently what remains of the creative capacity in the universe.

So I don’t think it’s a non-predetermined ability to develop. It’s still predetermined as an ability to interact with the undetermined. It is whether or not we initiate awareness, connection and collaboration with the infinite possibilities from the interaction of undetermined and predetermined events that can determine the causal conditions of a not-yet-determined event. Does that make sense? As humans we are potentially undetermined events - we can continue along predetermined trajectories, but we also retain the capacity to initiate awareness, connection and collaboration with other undetermined events (5D experiences beyond time) including ourselves, that enable us to design structures of causal conditions to bring about our preferred possibility as an actual 4D event. We can predict possibilities and then manipulate the environment in such a way as to be confident that the action we prefer WILL happen, even while it is still technically undetermined, uninitiated.

If the will operates in all interactions of the universe, how does it differ from causality? — Echarmion

It doesn’t, not really. As causality, we’re blind to our capacity to choose different actions when we look back on unbroken causal chains. As ‘free will’, we tend to be blind to how past experiences affect our actions looking forward. The way I see it, it’s only when we look at both concepts together as ‘the will’ that we get a clearer picture in either direction.

You say that the will "decides", but deciding is a conscious action that actors make. In what sense, then, can that will be said to decide? — Echarmion

Your’re right, the language isn’t helpful. I should explain again that the original wording has come from a dictionary definition of ‘will’ that was close to where I thought we should start from in developing a more accurate understanding of this will, and of ‘free will’ as a concept.

I agree that to decide implies a conscious, subjective choice - more related to ‘free will’ than to causality. Determine might be a more appropriate term, only because it doesn’t discount either.

So let’s say that the WILL is the faculty by which one determines and initiates an action by structuring the causal conditions that bring it about. This occurs through the awareness, connection and collaboration of all elements involved - in a fifth dimensional relation of experiences hierarchically structured beyond time. Most elements contribute predetermined causal conditions: their past interactions have already determined whether or not they initiate or reject the awareness, connection or collaboration which determines the part they play in an event before any action takes place. A self-conscious and creative human mind, however, can (with conscious attention) develop the capacity to not only become aware of their own awareness, but also to freely initiate OR reject any awareness, connection or collaboration that determines the part they play before any action takes place.

How could an unfree will even exist? That notion seems contradictory to me. Perhaps Possibility might could also share some thoughts about how it would make sense to call something that's merely part of a causal chain a "will". — Echarmion

To do that, I need to go back to the definition of ‘will’: the faculty by which one decides on and initiates action - which precedes the act of choosing. Anytime the action in question is decided on (determined) and initiated without bringing awareness, connection and collaboration into a conscious act of choosing, then the will (the faculty by which this action is decided on and initiated) still operates as such, but does NOT do so freely.

In my view, the will - the faculty by which action is determined and initiated - operates at a fundamental level in all interactions of the universe, but operates FREELY only in a self-conscious and creative human mind. One that can interact on a fifth dimensional level.

But why couldn't the universe just have infinite possibilities in any given moment, but only some actually occur?

I would point out, I am against the idea of free will. But I don't view the fact that we only know of one reality, as a reason to eliminate choice as a possibility. We can't know for sure this was the only possible reality (in fact believers in free will would automatically assume today would be different if people made different choices). — ZhouBoTong

The ‘infinite possibilities in any given moment’, for me refers to the fifth dimension. We can only verify the existence of one ‘actual’ moment because to do so it must be measured/observed in relation to the rest of the 4D structure of our experience. The photon, for example, is an event whose structure is ‘fuzzy’ until it’s observed, and its wave function collapses to a particle moving through spacetime.

For most of the universe, the infinite possibilities in each moment are not only beyond awareness, but they’re also beyond any deliberate interaction. And yet they exist, otherwise you wouldn’t be asking the question, would you? How are you vaguely aware of them? Mathematically? Emotionally? Was there a possible moment that you would have preferred to have occurred, instead of what actually occurred? Can you experience this preferred moment occurring in your mind? Does that impact on physical events in your bodily systems, even though it didn’t actually happen in time and space? Perhaps the un-actual moment wasn’t so much ‘preferred’ or more valued as calculated to be more probable. Different value/significance system, same dimensional relation - interacting ‘outside’ spacetime, in the fifth dimension.

How does this relate to free will?

Well, what if instead of the regret of experiencing a preferred unactual moment, you had been aware of and been capable of interacting with what you could do differently prior to the moment you did it? It sounds like a big IF, but the fact that we can experience these preferred unactual moments outside of the time they could have occurred at all demonstrates our capacity to experience and interact with any unactual moments outside of time. Even ‘prior’ to the act of choosing, at the point that the faculty of ‘will’ operates.

The thing is, we do this anyway - we just don’t realise how. We give this capacity over to our emotions, to logic and reason, to the various value systems we use to structure our 5D universe of subjective experience. It is the way we structure our world according to hierarchies of value/significance that tend to determine what information, events, people and objects we’re aware of, connecting and collaborating with at the moment that our will determines and initiates action.

If we can learn to be more aware of how and why certain actions are initiated, and more aware not only of the infinite possibilities in each moment at this point, but our capacity to interact there, then we can bring awareness, connection and collaboration that appear to be ‘gates’ of the will (discussed earlier in this thread) more to our conscious attention and into an act of choosing. Then we can develop the capacity to facilitate more freedom in the will and structure the causal conditions of an action ‘prior’ to the moment it occurs. Because the more we are aware, connected and collaborating, the more choices (acts of choosing, options to choose and range to choose from) we appear to have.

I have put all those phenomena together in a concept I call EnFormAction. — Gnomon

From a quick and cursory read through this (and in my humble and developing opinion), three things: I don’t think the Enformer, G*d, is necessary to define separately (ANW’s boat anchor, too, IMO). I also suggest you take a more detailed look at entropy and its relevance to information: Rovelli refers to entropy as ‘missing information’, and sees it as more vital to the universe than energy. Thirdly, perhaps look at exploring multi-dimensional relations in information processing (although I’m not sure where you would find literature on this). If I’m not mistaken, ratios are only one-dimensional relationships of information - computers, as far as I understand, are unable to fully integrate information beyond ratios. But the way I see it, integrated information processing in chemistry appears to be two-dimensional, in biochemistry three-dimensional, and in the brain it seems to be 4D at least, 5D correlation and integration of information allowing for the development of self-consciousness...

Yet, even more basic is BEING : the power to be, and to become. — Gnomon

Personally, I refer to this as potentiality: the capacity to develop, achieve and succeed; the ‘nothing’ from which something (everything) emerges. This links conceptually to Aristotle’s misunderstood dunamis, to potential energy in classical physics, as well as to potentiality in QM.

Some of your own neologisms gave me a chuckle, though...:grin:

Metaphysics, though, is more about the messenger (the implementation) than the message. — PoeticUniverse

Yes, that’s what I said: HOW a six dimensional universe manifests in our experience as ‘stuff in time’.

But to demonstrate how we nevertheless experience a universe that is grounded in substance and time... — Possibility

So, we see that the 5th dimension is all of your possible futures—in a kind of a superposition, I suppose. — PoeticUniverse

Not just all possible futures, but yes - I believe it is a kind of superposition. More like all possible events across time: past, present and future understood as a ‘block universe’, arranged in relation to significance rather than time.

1D: length only, awareness of more; a relation drawn between two points.
2D: lines; two points in relation to a third.
3D: space, triangulation; shapes across all distance.
4D: time; 3D objects across space.
5D: value, significance; events across time.
6D: meaning, matter; experiences of significance.

I ought to do X, thus avoidning Y, where Y is some negative consequence or condition is the main argument I'm hearing.This seems to have an air of escapism to me. Equating an ought statement to resenting the present state of things and wishing for some other arrangement of them accounts for only situations where there is something to be avoided, but how about when something may be pursued? I ought to do X to attain Y is not a statement of resentment, it is a goal. Take for instance charity. "I ought to give to charity because doing so makes me feel good." I exchange X for Y, money for positive emotional experience. — Pathogen

Let’s start by breaking down this statement:

1. I ought to do what makes me feel good.
2. Giving to charity makes me feel good.
3. Therefore, I ought to give to charity.

The reality we reject here is twofold. Firstly, that we are free to do something that doesn’t make us feel good, for a different, perhaps more important reason. Secondly, that we can stop ourselves, for whatever reason, from doing what makes us feel good. We are not compelled to always and only do what makes us feel good, whenever the opportunity arises.

It is rejecting this reality that creates the ‘ought’, an illusion of no acceptable choice but to give to charity.

“If only I always and only did what makes me feel good, then I would always give to charity.”

You ought to eat something within a period of month if you don't want to die. That's an ought. Again, hardly disputable. What's strange is the claim that every ought -- which means this one as well -- is a sign of resentment. That's clearly NOT the case. — Magnus Anderson

No - that’s still a choice. When you declare it as an ‘ought’ you assume that dying is both immanent and not an acceptable choice. You resent or reject it. That’s okay - I’m not the one saying what anyone ‘ought’ to do.

But being hungry for a month isn’t the same as “I am hungry - I ought to eat.” When you equate an experience of hunger with impending death, and view death as unacceptable, then you are heading into moral territory - you resent/reject reality. The reality is that hunger is a normal experience of living, and that death comes to everyone.

Just because most people don’t want to die, does not eliminate death from our reality. When we accept this reality then there is no ‘ought’, there is no morality - there is simply a capacity to choose.

If you're hungry it means that if you don't eat something soon you'll starve to death. You have two choices here:

1) try to find food so that you can stay alive
2) accept death

So what one ought to do? Notice that either choice would count as an ought.

The idea put forward is that every ought is a sign of resentment (maybe even ressentiment?) So whatever you choose, you're being resentful. Which is rather odd, don't you think? — Magnus Anderson

It amazes me that you honestly believe any experience of hunger is a sign of impending death.

Yes, you have two choices, but they’re not so dramatic as that: eat or continue to experience hunger. Neither of these is an ‘ought’, because an ‘ought’ is not a choice. When you transform a choice into an ‘ought’, this is a sign that you resent having to experience hunger at all. When you equate hunger with death, and view death as unacceptable, then you are heading into moral territory. This, I believe, is the idea put forward.

Keep in mind the underlying current moving individuals are BOREDOM, DISCOMFORT, and SURVIVAL. — schopenhauer1

I disagree with this. All of these are still motivated by an underlying FEAR that blocks more fundamental motivation to increase awareness, connection and collaboration.

Survival is our response to fears generated by increased AWARENESS. The more we know about the universe, the more capable we are of surviving, but the more we also recognise ourselves as individually fragile, temporary creatures with no solid, eternal existence in the physical world. In fact, we cannot exist without some connection to the world. But we reject/resent this reality out of fear by decreasing awareness, and in doing so strive pointlessly towards a survival that will ultimately fail.

Discomfort is our response to fears generated by increased CONNECTION. The more we connect with the world around us, the less discomfort we feel with the world, but the more we also recognise that the universe is not made solely for our benefit. Any sense of comfort in a world we share with others relies on collaboration. But we reject/resent this reality by decreasing connection, and in doing so strive to achieve a sense of individual comfort that’s ultimately an illusion.

Boredom is our response to fears generated by increased COLLABORATION. The more we work together with others, the less boredom we feel, but the more we also recognise that some activities don’t interest us, yet must be achieved in order to work on what does interest us. But we reject/resent this reality by decreasing collaboration, and in doing so strive pointlessly and alone to relieve the boredom of our everyday lives.

That's true. I refuse to die and prefer to live. But is that resentment? Most importantly, is that something negative? Consider the alternative, which is accepting reality as it is. What happens? I die. — Magnus Anderson

First of all, don’t get ahead of yourself: experiencing hunger does NOT mean I will die. The alternative is accepting the reality that hunger is a part of life, something we can experience many times in our life and even for a prolonged period of time without dying. That is reality as it is.

Having said that, dying is also a part of the universe that we tend to reject/resent in favour of a world that doesn’t and cannot exist: one where we don’t die.

I am hungry, I ought to eat. According to you, that's a sign of resentment, a rejection of part of the universe in favor of other parts, or more bizarrely, in favor of a world that doesn't and couldn't exist. — Magnus Anderson

In a way, yes. ‘Ought’ is a sign that one rejects/resents the experience of being hungry in favour of a world without hunger.

Human experience is a tool for extracting the value we designate as understanding. To that end, we transcend whatever "thing-ness" we experience. They are ignorant those who get caught up in the experience of "things" and deny themselves the upgrade of understanding which should be the hallmark of all homo sapiens. — BrianW

I agree with you that ignorance is what holds us back in relation to discrimination. But it’s not about pointing the finger of blame, declaring who is ‘at fault’ or attacking others because of ignorance or ‘stupidity’.

Discrimination is the result of an irrational response to ignorance and fear. A top-down moral imperative isn’t going to work, and only inspires anger from all sides. Overcoming discrimination starts with increasing awareness, connection and collaboration. Whether that’s a call for authority to enforce it (through desegregation, equal rights, restructuring discourse and language, education, collaborative projects, etc) or initiated at an individual level, to me it’s the most effective solution. — Possibility

You appear to be arguing for a top-down moral imperative. I’m saying this isn’t an effective solution in itself. Equality in the law is only the beginning - it sets the stage for increasing awareness, connection and collaboration to effect change at the level of subjective experience. This means compassion (not pity or disdain) for those who may struggle with this ‘upgrade of understanding’, who lack the education, discourse or subjective experiences to understand at this point. We need to be patient and gentle in how we interact if we hope to hold the moral high ground. Calling them ‘ignorant’ or ‘stupid’ is counterproductive, and is itself a form of discrimination.

Now distinguishing between the act of initiating a choice, which would then be unconsciuous, and the conscious realization of the choice may perhaps by some people be seen as splitting hairs, but I can say, that I do find it useful, especially is the one, as I see it, is unconscious whereas the other is conscious. — Andreas Greifenberger

And yet research has been brought up here that points to this very distinction, so for many people it isn’t splitting hairs at all, but has some significance. My argument is that this being deemed ‘outside consciousness’ is a result of it being untraceable in the four dimensions we believe to constitute the limits of our consciousness. Yes, in many situations we are unaware of how this happens - but I believe that’s only because we fail to recognise our capacity to be aware of the fifth dimension and how it operates in the human brain. I’ll try to keep this as clear and brief as I can...

Let’s take a step backwards, first. In order to be aware of a fourth dimension (time), we need to first recognise that it relates to our universe. We need to recognise that the distinction between two elements of sensory data relate to something other than their relative positions in 3D space. We are aware that ‘something’ changes in our experience even when nothing appears to change. That something we have named ‘time’.

So to confirm and better understand the existence of time, we attempt to map it in relation to 3D space. And we realise that our ability to confirm and understand 3D space in the first place is because we have always been vaguely aware of and able to interact with four dimensions - we operate in time. We also begin to realise that everything in our world is better understood in relation to four dimensions: as events operating in time.

In mapping this 4D universe in the brain, we also realise two key things: that time exists well beyond our own 3D physical existence, and that we have a vague awareness of interaction with something not just beyond our physical existence, but also beyond time. It is this vague awareness that helps us to map the four dimensional universe - to conceive ancient history and possible futures, as well as the cosmos, the Big Bang, eternity, God, potential energy, etc. We attempt to give it substance within the four dimensional universe we are mapping, even as we are aware that it exists beyond. This is where most of us get stuck, because we’re looking for 4D empirical proof.

If the fourth dimension is a relation of time, then what is a fifth dimension a relation of? What are we aware of that distinguishes our relation to elements of the world regardless of time, shape, distance, etc? What is it that exists for us beyond time and space that helps us to map our relation to time and space? In my view, it’s value, significance: numbers, words, family, tribe, property, hierarchy, species, etc. None of these have substance except that they enable us to map our relation to the 4D world from a point beyond time and space. This is the fifth dimension.

Just like time, value is not something we’ve made up. We’ve always interacted with the world in relation to significance or value, and everything in our world is more completely understood as experiences of significance rather than simply events in time. We just haven’t yet learned how we interact with the significance of an experience beyond time to effect change in the world - even though we do it all the time, mostly unconsciously. Just as all animals unconsciously interact with time to recognise 3D objects from visual cues.

Have you ever genuinely been on the receiving end of discrimination?

I’m asking because it seems to me that you don’t really understand what it’s like to be consistently ignored, overlooked, dismissed, denied consideration, deliberately excluded, uncategorised and generally not counted - simply because of your ‘thing-ness’. Unless you’ve experienced the choice between accepting that you’re not a person, or doing what you can to ensure you’re at least considered - then I don’t think you can really understand what it means to say “I’m black and I’m proud”.

The way I see it, this pride statement means ‘I won’t hide my ‘black’-ness just to be considered as a human being - this is who I am, so take notice.’ It has nothing to do with flaunting anything OVER anyone else.

If someone flaunts their "thing-ness" (white-ness) over others, then in response those others reverse the point of bias and attempt to flaunt their "thing-ness" (black-ness) back at them, doesn't that make dumb-asses of both? — BrianW

You’ve got this wrong. It’s not in response to someone flaunting their ‘whiteness’. It’s in response to a silent assumption that there is the world that makes sense, that is expected, ordered and regular - and then there is ‘black’-ness.

If that pride is the consequence of possessing a "thing", doesn't that mean the lack of that "thing" is a cause for shame? Otherwise, we would all just be proud, period. — BrianW

The ‘dumb-ass’ is the one who thinks ‘black’-ness and ‘white’-ness currently describe the same ‘thing’-ness in human experience. This is about restoring the pride of being a human being to anyone we might describe as ‘black’.

Anyways, aren't the above statements the kind of nonsense that enable discrimination?
— BrianW
you listed 'pride' statements, I just realized this quote might be confusing out of context.

Many different culture view 'pride' differently. But generally, I agree that 'pride' would not typically imply that all people are equal...and beyond that it implies that a certain characteristic (whatever one is proud of) is 'right' and anyone who possesses said trait is 'better'. — ZhouBoTong

Taking these statements out of context separates them from their meaning and significance for those who utter them.

The original ‘pride’ statements are a response to assumptions that one should feel inferior for being ‘black’, for instance. The aim is to challenge the label’s negative connotations within the discourse. When people come back with statements such as “I’m white and I’m proud” in a discourse where being ‘black’ has connotations of inferiority, it speaks of white supremacy.

The point is simply that to say that 'we can't accept speech as a source of power over other people' is like saying 'we can't accept the sky is blue'; human history to a large degree the results of the power of speech and action over and with others. One can try to not 'accept' reality - but the loser here won't be reality. — StreetlightX

I understand what you’re saying, but there’s a difference between accepting ‘the sky is blue’ as a description of experience and accepting ‘the sky is blue’ as a statement of fundamental reality. The fact that one may experience speech having a degree of influence over their actions does not make that ‘power’ an objective reality we cannot but accept. It’s still a perception.

Understanding how we have surrendered to the words we hear and interpret this ‘power’ over our emotions, thoughts and actions, and then having the courage to take it back, is more effective and less destructive in my opinion than trying to exercise authority over what people can and cannot say. I believe human history demonstrates that.

Do you really believe that the words someone says have a power over you that you cannot control?

Should all forms of hate speech be allowed, including the racist ones. Should hate speech which instigates violence be allowed ? If we ban a certain type of offensive speeches and usually the arguments are oriented around feelings being hurt. We may also argue against criticizing a religion or an ideology. I know one of the group isn't a choice and the other is but does it matter. — Wittgenstein

I have to agree with @Terrapin Station on this one. It isn’t a matter of stifling subjective expressions of opinion (deemed hateful or not). It’s a matter of educating people to be aware that these are subjective expressions of opinion, and their own thoughts, words or actions in response are their own responsibility. This is the case regardless of the power, influence or control we may have handed over.

The problem is that society currently doesn’t work this way. When we say that the speech of one human being instigates violence in another, we separate the responsibility from the right or capacity to act. Cause and effect then retains all rights but passes all responsibility up the chain of command. It seems like there is no choice, but the truth is that the alternatives are freely rejected - and yes, death is always an option.

When we start to accept speech as a source of power over the actions of human beings, which must then be controlled by another external power, then I think we’re going backwards, not forwards.

This would assume that we are motivated by capabilities, rather than just have capabilities that we can or cannot work towards achieving. That is a major difference. The former is saying that we can't help being motivated by what we may be capable of. How do you know that's not just habituation? Is that internal? How would you prove that? — schopenhauer1

But we can help it. Fear is our capacity to say ‘No’ to awareness of, connection or collaboration with what we’re capable of. If we say ‘Yes’ to all three, then we cannot help but be motivated by it. As far as proof is concerned, I’m not sure - the best I can do at this point is keep offering it up to testing against a range of subjective experiences. That’s why I’m here.

Social expectation seems to motivate a lot of what we do, and what goals to achieve. — schopenhauer1

That’s a decision we make to surrender to social expectation, to allow it to answer yes/no for us. How does society respond to those who act against social expectation? Is that what we’re afraid of? How capable do you believe you are of living counter to any particular expectation of society?

That does not mean there lacks a way to overcome discrimination. In fact, the best method has been to employ reason. The foremost supporters of equality against all kinds of discrimination have been those devoted to application of reason. They could be philosophers, scholars, ordinary men and women, etc, however their method is intrinsically self-sustaining because it can withstand reciprocation. Even politicians who usually try to fake it sometimes slip up and get caught in their lies.
However, reason is not the path of least resistance for most people. Usually they want to demand appropriate consideration, declare their right to equality, defame the biased, etc, etc, which to me is kind of like begging for a certain level of acceptance since they all need acknowledgement from others. Hence that question in the OP. — BrianW

Discrimination is a response to the overwhelming reality that what we are unaware of, disconnected from or not collaborating with can still interact with us in some way. By denying, excluding or devaluing aspects of our experience, we attempt to maintain a structure of reality we can satisfactorily predict, define and control. This renders everything that doesn’t fit into this structure as a threat.

Discrimination is the result of an irrational response to ignorance and fear. A top-down moral imperative isn’t going to work, and only inspires anger from all sides. Overcoming discrimination starts with increasing awareness, connection and collaboration. Whether that’s a call for authority to enforce it (through desegregation, equal rights, restructuring discourse and language, education, collaborative projects, etc) or initiated at an individual level, to me it’s the most effective solution.

It’s a description of the structure of quantum mechanics in terms of information. By ‘manifests itself’ I think he’s talking about reality from the POV of the observer, but that’s not related to the point I’m trying to make.

Extrapolated out, what he’s saying suggests that our description of an experience derives from how it interacts with or relates to information we have about different experiences.

So we cannot describe an experience of ‘greenness’ if every experience we’ve ever had has ‘greenness’ as a property. If the experiencing system has no experience that isn’t green, then green doesn’t exist for the system.

Exactly. The other thought experiment I was thinking of is about a spaceship full of men. After millions of years (where I guess they clone themselves), they've lost any memory at all of female-ness. They don't even have female plug adapters. The question being: would they know that they're male?

As you hinted, their concept for what they are would stop at human. They don't know that they're male because they don't have anything to compare that to.

So we can see that being able to conceive of maleness isn't just a matter of being exposed to the positive qualities we think of as maleness. Conceiving of maleness is a matter of holding it up against a background of its negation. Conceiving of anything is a matter of doing something with an opposition. — frank

From Carlo Rovelli’s ‘Reality Is Not What You Think’:

“A physical system manifests itself only by interacting with another. The description of a physical system, then, is always given in relation to another physical system, one with which it interacts.

“A description of a system is, therefore, always a description of the information which a system has about another system.”

In my personal worldview thesis, I have concluded that everything in reality, both matter and mind, is made of various forms of shape-shifting Information. And ultimately all information boils down to relationships. In abstract mathematics, we call those interrelations "Ratios". Energy/Matter is what we call "physical" and Mind/Math is called "metaphysical", but it's all on the same continuum, from Ideal to Real. This notion may sound like spooky Panpsychism, but it's actually derived from scientific Quantum Theory. And elemental Information is not necessarily conscious, though human self-consciousness is presumed to be a product of Information processing. — Gnomon

I understand where you’re coming from. I’ve noticed that our understanding of potential energy, consciousness, information and relationships are able to connect now in ways we perhaps haven’t been open to previously, thanks to quantum theory.

I'd be interested to know where you got the idea that "these tangible objects are basically relations between energy events", I may want to use it in my further exploration of the Enformationism thesis. — Gnomon

Alfred North Whitehead’s early approach to process philosophy aimed to develop a process cosmology where ‘events’ (not things) and ‘relations’ (not separate objects) are fundamental, and to account for the ontological relationship between process and substance, between subjectivity and objectivity. I don’t think he quite got there, but I think his work forms a useful base to develop this idea, if you can follow his neologisms. Here’s an interesting discussion.

But Carlo Rovelli’s approach from modern physics brings this idea of ‘relations between events’ into the quantum loop gravity side of current attempts at a ToE - I think you’ll find his books ‘The Order of Time’ and ‘Reality Is Not What You Think’ to be useful, particularly in relation to your thesis. I like the way he describes how Shannon’s Information Theory relates to Quantum Theory.

I think the relationships between the concepts of potentiality, potential energy, energy and matter are key to understanding what everything is made of in relation to what we experience of reality. If we can’t explain the structures of these relationships - whether it be conceptually with words, through diagrams or mathematical formulae - then we don’t have a scientifically useful answer.

For me, it’s not so much about events or substance, but about interaction with multi-dimensional relationships of information. But to demonstrate how we nevertheless experience a universe that is grounded in substance and time is a lesson for me in navigating discourse - because mapping six-dimensional relationships requires mathematical ability I don’t have.

At least at first sight I see nothing here to disagree with. — Andreas Greifenberger

Ok. So if we go back to the definition of WILL (from earlier in this thread) - the faculty by which one decides on and initiates action - then it seems to me that deciding on and initiating an action is not the same as the act of choosing.

I’m getting the impression that it’s problematic to use the term ‘choice’ in a discussion about will. Because at the moment you choose, the act of choosing has already been decided on and initiated. Therefore the will must be an underlying faculty that initiates the act of choosing.

But then it seems we reach the dilemma of an ‘uncaused cause’. Something decides on and initiates an action in time from a position beyond time. In my view that’s not ‘God’ - it’s human consciousness. But as an evolving capacity, not as some special ‘gift’ that sets us apart.

If I go back to my original post, perhaps it should read:

I can initiate the awareness, connection and collaboration that decides on an action.

In my view, this is the WILL: before we choose, before we think, before we act, there is a point (outside time) at which the human mind is at least potentially capable of freely structuring (ie. initiating and deciding on) the causal conditions of any action.

Yes, it’s difficult to test this. Ideally I’d like to get to that point, but not at the expense of the theory itself. We’re delving into fifth dimension interactions here, so it can get confusing, and we can lose our grounding in physical reality at times. I find great value in continually relating the theory back to subjective experiences - both mine and others. Testing fifth dimension aspects of reality is like determining the position of a photon - all you have to work with is a complex formula of relations to 4D variables.

You may have also noticed by now that I keep re-wording this theory as I go. Many of the contributions here have been extremely helpful in helping me to articulate how it all already fits together in my mind.

Another simple example of free will is the question, whether I get myself some coffee or tea now. My free will may be reduced by the fact that I am thirsty now, and so I have no choice but to get something to drink. But I have a free choice as to what I will drink. — Andreas Greifenberger

But you do still have a choice to NOT get something to drink, even though you’re thirsty now. Your body may protest in a number of ways, and you may believe that it’s important to listen to your body - but you can still CHOOSE not to drink.

Nevertheless, I must point out that a reduced free will is not free. Also, ‘choice’ and ‘will’ are not interchangeable terms.

I’m not trying to be difficult here - we all seem to be roughly of the same opinion in relation to the existence of free will. But those denying the possibility of free will also have valid arguments that our current descriptions of ‘a will that is free’ fail to measure up against, to be honest.

I don't think it is meaningful to speak in terms of absolutes
— Wayfarer

Agreed.

many of those who deny the possibility of free will, seem to me to deny free will simply because it's not absolute
— Wayfarer

Okay, but I do believe that it is useful at times to recall in what ways we are not free, and don't have an entirely free will. It is, I am inclined to believe, similar to the question whether or not we are objective in our judgements. — Andreas Greifenberger

As discussed earlier in this thread, the question is not so much ‘What is the degree of freedom in free will?’ - it’s more along the lines of ‘what is the will, and how is it free?’ To say that ‘our will is not entirely free’ to me defeats the purpose of calling it ‘free will’. You might as well just call it ‘will’.

The way I see it, the problem lies with how we define ‘will’. Some people see the will as our general capacity for decision-making, or the whole notion of choice. Others define it as what we consciously want to do. Still others take ‘free will’ as an indivisible concept, and define it as a variable quantity or degree of freedom one has in choosing.

As far as I can see, we’ve gone round and round for centuries on a questionable understanding of exactly what the will is, that invariably leads to people talking past each other.

But regardless of how we currently define ‘will’, perhaps we can agree on a few statements before we continue (and please feel free to suggest edits here):

1. We are at least capable of CHOICE: an ACT of choosing a particular OPTION from a VARIETY or range.

2. Limitations and/or constraints on choice appear to occur at any or all of the above three points.

3. Some of these limitations/constraints on choice are considered to be SELF-IMPOSED at various levels of consciousness.

4. Other limitations/constraints are the result of EXTERNAL power, influence or control.

5. The current question of FREE WILL cannot be taken as an absolute yes or no, because of the four statements above.

But doesn't this sound a bit too starry-eyed to you? What makes you think this? Is this conscious or unconscious? Is this evolutionary? Are humans that "If/then"? Also, aren't these just the type of values society would want individuals to follow anyways, thus begging the question, or making it circular? — schopenhauer1

Yes - it does sound starry-eyed, I agree. That doesn’t make it wrong or even misguided. Who said reality isn’t allowed to be uplifting? If you were capable of doing anything at all, if you removed all obstacles, then what would you do with your purchase on the world? If death couldn’t stop you - if you could freely choose your actions without having to worry about your own pain, loss or humiliation - would you really pursue short term, personal pleasure? Comfort? Relief from boredom? It would probably be your initial response, sure - but if you had time to think about it, once all your immediate needs were met, what would motivate you to do anything else?

Frankly, if it weren’t for our fears - for encountering and then flatly denying the fragile, temporary nature of our existence - don’t you think we’d be doing a whole lot more with what we’re capable of? So, you see, it’s not so starry-eyed: it’s actually scary as hell to recognise that the only thing really holding me back is me...

The way I see it, the three ACC motivations are fundamentally pre-conscious, but that doesn’t prevent us from being conscious of them OR from ignoring them. They’re evolutionary, but not Darwinian. Rather, they appear to have preceded natural selection and continue to run alongside and sometimes counter to it. They’re the spanner in the works of evolutionary theory: where abiogenesis, multi-celled organisms, establishing social groups, altruism and unconditional love look like round pegs being forced into the square holes of established theories.

And if these are just the type of values society would want individuals to follow, then why are all of their value systems structured in a way that counteracts it? Is it because we’ve been convinced that the pyramid is naturally smaller at the top? What brought about these systems? Was it perhaps fear?

At the end of the day we are looking to be most comfortable, survive, and find ways to assuage boredom. Mainly we seek out the positive "goods" of in various forms of achievement, physical/aesthetic pleasure, relationships, flow-states, and maybe learning to this basic motivation of boredom. — schopenhauer1

And yet people everyday are motivated to get uncomfortable, to risk their lives and continue a monotonous task - even all three at once - suggesting that there is motivation more fundamental than these...

My theory: to increase awareness, connection and collaboration towards overall achievement, unless blocked/prevented by fear.

Yes, so not getting fired becomes a priority. Getting in car to get to work..etc. These are all habits dictated by the social convention- lateness or absenteeism leads to being fired in most places, so we habituate ourselves with the values of timeliness and punctuality. We take on self-imposed values to align with how others expect us to act. Then there are other values.. Many times I think these values are projections of what others might think we should be doing at that moment. Other times we just go to the lowest common denominator and do what's most expedient. It is interesting how we decide what we are going to do, and even determine what it is we want. It is more of a fuzzy sense of direction often made more defined by self-imposed habituation of values, addictions, expediency, discomfort, and loneliness/boredom. I would still characterize most decisions as based on survival (in a societal setting), discomfort, and boredom (in a societal setting). — schopenhauer1

Once again, an interesting discussion, Schopenhauer.

I think values are fifth dimension structures that ultimately enable us to achieve what motivates us at the deepest level: to increase our awareness of the world, to connect with aspects of it in ways that are not confined by our spacetime existence, and to collaborate beyond our physicality. I think these three motivations operate at a deeper level than survival or responding to discomfort and boredom (ie. deeper than causal), but because we’ve reasoned that survival, for instance, is a high priority (based on the theory of evolution), we focus on and build our value structures around it. Plus, most of us don’t really believe there IS anything deeper than causal, do we?

Why do you like to talk with your friend? Why don’t you want to get fired? Why do you want to inform yourself of more information? These are often question we don’t ask ourselves anymore - as @god must be atheist mentioned, the questions were asked when we were four - but the answers now may be more revealing than we might think, if we’re honest with ourselves. I think that your answers may uncover these three underlying motivations, but they can also reveal the deep-seated fears that are blocking these motivations: perhaps you believe that your social ‘survival’ is at stake, but at a deeper level getting fired may prevent you from maintaining certain connections or collaborating with others to achieve a success that benefits all those involved, regardless of the money, status or control that you may be led to believe makes the world go ‘round, and irrespective of your physical survival, discomfort or boredom.

I think that how others expect us to act, and what we think we should be doing, also boil down to our current beliefs that these actions maintain the levels of awareness, the connections and opportunities to collaborate and achieve with others that motivate us more than our own survival. The real question to ask is: Once I understand what’s most important to me, are these actions the only options I have to achieve it?

Hang on here Possibility, let me just understand exactly what you mean by the term "will". You had initially defined it as "the faculty by which a person decides on and initiates action." But in this subsequent post you added to that definition stating that "will, as I understand it, is an underlying faculty that is inherent in every element of matter". That amplifies the concept beyond your initial definition. Can you clarify that for me? Because depending on what you mean I may have a response. Thanks. — chris1976

Oh, you noticed that? Yes, the original definition that refers to ‘a person’ is copied straight from the dictionary. I figured it was a good place to start. The amplified concept is ‘as I understand it’, which is my developing perspective, and is obviously open for debate.

I hope that helps.

But it would imply that some people are literally less human than others due to genetics. Also I’m still not convinced one can make the decision not to be aware of something, or to be aware of something for that matter. How does one decide to become aware of X? The decision itself requires him to be aware of X. — khaled

Not the way I see it. The human body is comprised of a complex system of systems: sensory, nervous, limbic, digestive, etc. Each of those systems is limited in awareness, and also comprised of collaborative components (blood vessels, blood cells, plasma, etc) that are themselves limited in awareness. So it’s more like people in general are literally less ‘human’ the deeper you go.

As for deciding to become aware of something: information is basically the answer to a question. You can have a question/entropy - a lack of information - and an idea of where or how to find the answer, but then choose not to pursue that answer. Like closing your eyes or covering your ears.