How would you know if you are thinking freely or merely have the concept of thinking freely. I think I can freely choose to spend time on this forum, but how free is my choice really? I know I have other jobs to do, but debating complex concepts provides reward stimuli to the brain which activates the base animal in me that chooses such immediate rewards over longer term rewards (like getting paid for doing actual work).

I concur with 's well reasoned post. And the 'becauses' that we use include many levels, such as biological imperative, psychological, behavioural and so forth.

I think this is coming close to another post on this forum about morality. Why do we choose to act morally - do we indeed have a choice?

Perhaps then freedom of thought is not so much having absolute (infinite) freedom to choose, but freedom to choose from a finite number of predetermined possible courses of action?

Just thinking further about the difference between ideas and organisms. True, an idea doesn't itself have a will, but does it induce a will in the mind that thinks it? An idea that fits well into a mind induces senses of pleasure in the organism, and thus the idea is accepted and incorporated into existing ideas, and thus it combines with other ideas and becomes part of the a chain of reasoning that propogates.

I like the logic there. I don't think it proves a zeroeth order, but it is a logical and sensible hypothesis that matches the observations and can easily be tested, so in the manner of theories it serves well.

I’m a raging nerd — praxis

Made me smile.

my go-to moniker wherever I happen to land on the internet — Noble Dust

I often use 'the VRguy' for the same reason - having worked in the VR industry for decades.

Let's reason together, muthafucka! — 180 Proof

I like the concept behind this. I once started a highly unsuccessful website called humanitycomputer.org, the premise being that the human race should be able to reason itself out of whatever messing it gets itself into. Very idealistic - I was much younger and more naive then.

This presupposes that the only factor affecting a choice is morality. Morally, I might pick up a lost wallet and give it into the police station. If I'm short on money, I might remove the cash first before taking the wallet to the police station. One then makes up a justification along the lines of "at least I didn't try to access the bank accounts using the cards, and I did return the wallet, and the cash is my reward". I can feel morally adequate - moral to the point of not being found out.

On that note, people are generally very good at tying themselves in logical knots to justify previously made decisions.

Questions like this would normally be followed by a conjecture based on observations to which we could attempt refutation. I'm not sure how I can tell if I have free will or not, so forming some form of testable hypothesis is difficult.

Even serious meditators cannot claim to be totally free, though — Gnomon

Indeed, we are animals who have evolved through millenia. Our first question always has to be "how is what I am thinking now biased by my evolutionary programming?" It is possible that we can never be even slightly free from this in the same way we can never really be free from the effects of gravity. But we can be aware that everything we do and say is most likely biased and act accordingly with humility and critical thought.

In a way, yes. Of course, if you choose to go against the moral norms of the society you are in, you won't be appreciated by the other members of the society.

Another theory of ideas comes more from the cognitive and behavioural science areas. We perceive, and this activates parts of our brains. Through interaction, we learn about the world around us, and formulate more complex ideas, and even abstract concepts. So, a simplified view of that is that all ideas are in essence laid over the top of existing ideas in a framework that exists inside our heads. One can argue that all learning and hence ideas is a part of metaphor building, in that all ideas have to somehow link to other ideas otherwise they don't fit well within the mind.

From a neural network point of view, the same sort of the things happens - one can train a neural network to respond in certain ways to patterns of input. Patterns of input that are close to but not exactly the same would generally produce an output that is some combination of the learned responses for which the input pattern is closest. Further, if one was to retrain a neural network without first wiping it, it will learn more quickly to respond to inputs that are similar to previously trained inputs/output combinations. This seems to be analgous how animals find it easy to learn things that are similar to something they already know (ie metaphors).

This is not a morally circumscribed action until it becomes one by an outside concern. The interest of other selves come to bear on your lifestyle and you may not take kindly to the hardship it imposes on you. — Nils Loc

This is the crux of the dilemma facing decisions made for the best of the planet, societies and people. We are now having the interests of another self (the planet) imposed on us through increased climate variability, and people don't like it.

But surely you can call a shellfish selfish. Or a shelf-ish piece of furniture shelfish. Or a selfish person when you are drunk shelfish. — god must be atheist

Sometimes a little humour can help lighten the mood.

Interesting proposition. Ideas are not reproducing by themselves; it is the mind that makes similar, but not identical, replicas of an idea when it progresses it in a line of thought. So if you insist that it's an evolution, of an organism, ideas are, then I suggest that ideas are parasites that completely depend on their hosts for survival, and their transmission from host to host happens by way of language and communication of thought. — god must be atheist

An interesting and valid point. Of course, parasites evolve as well. One area where the analogy breaks down is that ideas are not self ambulatory, and have no mind of their own, so to speak. They don't direct their actions towards survival - there is no will or force to survive, if that is what one can call it. This has to be artificially induced.

I'm coming at this more from an evolutionary algorithms point of view, which is an approximation of the evolutionary process as modelled in a computer. In that instance, one constructs the whole evolutionary process in order to attempt to achieve a desired goal. A key question is always the choice of the 'fitness function' which determines which 'organisms' survive each generation and can 'reproduce'. I put these terms in quotes because thse are numbers in a computer and mathematical functions, but the concepts are the same.

My thesis is that a similar approach could be used to direct people's thinking towards ideas that are beneficial for the planet, societies and each other. But in this case, the computer is 'wetware' (our brains) rather than hardware, and the 'software' is probably managed through the internet. This is already happening, but not to a positive effect with the likes of facebook.

I don't have a dog, but I know that cats can be selfish. If I put a pile of treats between our two cats, they won't stand back to let the other one in first.

If I perceive something directly with my senses, that must form a first-order idea. Over time, I perceive many horses, and I build up an idea in my brain of 'horse-ness', or things that are 'horsey'. Mostly this helps me identify from my senses what I am currently perceiving, and potentially some action that I ought to take (like step out of the way of the running horse).

The reason I might want to step out of the way is because the idea of horses has combined with some other perceptions I've had of people being run down by running bulls, so I create a second order idea that combines 'the danger of large animals running' and 'horses are large animals' in order to draw a conclusion that 'a running horse could cause me danger'.

The idea of a horse is an abstract entity as it resides in my head. And I could just as well embellish it with other first-order ideas that I also have, created as a result of perception, such as 'horns' and 'rainbow colours' to create an idea of a unicorn. But this would be a second-order idea, not a first-order one. I've never actually seen a unicorn (except for that time when I drank that green liquor, but I 'saw' many other odd things then too).

Is there a difference between thinking one has free will because the system is so complex we cannot perceive the factors that contribute to determinism; and actually having free will?

I suppose that there are those who seek anonymity by choosing a nom de plume. Perhaps they are uncomfortable with having their statements associated with themselves.

Then there are those that seem to choose a name associated with some desired attribute, or a philosopher that they perhaps aspire to emulate. Perhaps they are uncomfortable in being themselves, and wish to borrow the mana of another.

Me, I know I know nothing, and therefore my only direction is to decrease my ignorance. I assume my ideas are probably wrong, and I wish to be criticised, for only through such critique, can I find where the value of my ideas sits in the world of ideas. Only I can be me.

What if we lived in a harsh environment where a sick person would mean we have to spend effort on looking after them, to the extent that the entire group might perish? Which is more moral then, looking after the sick person or looking after the group? This is the kind of moral decision many herd animals make (or rather, it is probably built in). For the herd to survive, sometimes the weak and sick have to be left behind so that the predator doesn't take the fitter animals.

So, if morality is absolute, then surely it should be absolute across the board, not just for humans?

ravens can't rave. — unenlightened

Oh, I don't know: A dancing crow

Philosophy is like a cow that eats ideas and shits all over them and also enriches the soil. — unenlightened

I think this has to be the quote of year... Though perhaps one could even say that "Philosophy is like a cow that eats ideas, chews over them again and again like it chews its cud, digests them, and shits them out thus enriching the soil to grow new ideas."

I'm sure it is, but one has to push an analogy beyond its limits in order to define the border.

The measure of fitness is survival. — unenlightened

Yes, but what is the rule that ensures survival? In natural systems, it is survival of the fittest, but in an artificial system, one has to create the fitness function to match the desired outcome. So, for example, when using genetic algorithms to grow neural networks, the fitness function is defined to grow the networks to perform as desired. So, if we had to define a fitness function for growing ideas within humanity, or for that matter, a fitness function for growing AIs to benefit humanity, what might it say?

Perhaps we are not imaginative enough to come up with something more inventive.

There are many interesting philosophies, ways that people attempt to explain the world they perceive, and ways to get along. It's interesting to talk about Western vs Eastern, but in reality there are many other ways to get the world to work. For example, In New Zealand, there is the Maori way of seeing the world and establishing how we should get along (from this webpage: Kaupapa Maori

Whanaungatanga refers to the building and maintenance of relationships. It’s the process of establishing meaningful, reciprocal and whānau or family-like relationships through cultural respect, connectedness and engagement.

Manaakitanga describes sharing, hosting and being generous. It supports collaborative research and evaluation and helps knowledge flow both ways between researcher/evaluator and participant.
Aroha means love but it also means respect. Treating people with respect means allowing them control: where to meet and on their own terms, and when to meet. Aroha also relates to the information collected. You should let the participant decide what information will become public and what will stay confidential. They can also choose whether to participate anonymously.

Mahaki is about showing humility when sharing knowledge. Mahaki reminds us to share knowledge and experiences to understand each other better and to foster trust in the research or evaluator relationship.
Mana relates to power, dignity and respect. Kaua e takahia te mana o te tangata “Do not trample on the mana or dignity of a person”. People are the experts on their own lives, including their problems, needs and aspirations. Look for ways to work together.

Titiro, whakarongo, kōrero means to look, listen and then speak. When researching and evaluating it’s important to look and listen to develop understanding and find a place to speak from. You need to take time to understand people’s day-to-day realities, priorities and aspirations. This will make your questions relevant to the participant.

Kia Tupato is being cautious. You need to be politically savvy, culturally safe, and reflective about your insider or outsider status. Staying safe might mean working with elders and others in the community who can guide your research and evaluation.

He kanohi kitea means being a familiar face. You should seek to be involved with communities and familiar to them to build trust and communication
.

What does this mean? It means that we often think that our western way to analyse ideas and concepts is the only way, but Kaupapa Maori teaches us some useful rules of life, but also how one should interact with other people, and that one should start with the community, not the individual.

That seems sensible. An evolutionary benefit.

Morality is a social convenience, nothing more.

The ultimate way to persuade someone is to first understand where they are coming from, in other words, knowing something about their state of mind and the knowledge they already possess. Then, one has to create a link between that knowledge base and the idea you want to implant. An idea sits best in a mind if that mind can see how it links to existing ideas. Good teachers and effective salespeople do this.

Isn’t morality subjective? Doesn’t it depend on the environment, culture, society in which one finds oneself? So, my morality would be different to yours. So, I don’t see morality as being absolute. There may be common aspects of morality across cultures due to other underlying reasons. For example it is rarely moral to kill someone else because this impacts negatively on the society, though there have been societies where killing people was seen as a way to please the gods, and thus considered ‘moral’.

Indeed. Popper talks about what I would think can best be described as how to value practical ideas. The scientific process, and in essence it is an attempt to remove human bias from the process of idea evolution. Humans tend to see patterns that are not always there, and tend to want to believe they are right. Scientists are human, so the process of conjecture and refutation is about mitigating that.

But an idea represented by an art installation, say? Or a piece of music? Or a philosophical concept (eg panpsychism)? Hmm, conjecture and refutation certainly doesn’t make sense there.

Pessimist or Realist?

If I observe that a burger I purchased is not good, I would make a conjecture as to why that might be so. Is it because the meat was off because it wasn’t properly stored, for example. Depending on my hypothesis, I could then attempt to draw conclusions about the other two burgers bought at the same time. So, I would be testing my hypothesis with the next burger. If I find that the next burger is good, then I would need to adjust my hypothesis based on the new observation. Perhaps just one batch of meat was bad, but the next burger was made with a different batch. If the second burger was also bad, then that would likely confirm my hypothesis so far, but the third burger might be good, thus requiring an adjustment again. And in fact none of those observations confirm the hypothesis directly, unless I take further action and ask questions about the storing of the meat, say. Perhaps the first burger was actually bad because someone dropped the patty on the floor.

So, the observation, that the first burger is bad, is real, which leads to a conjecture, which leads to testable refutation opportunities (if one is still keen to buy burgers from the same place after getting one bad one).

Good points. I’ll need to think about that a bit, but I think you are now getting into the next stage of my rather loose theory, which is most excellent. I am also still trying to define exactly what an idea is. Coming at that from a neural network / cognitive science point of view, an ‘idea‘ is a neural response to a set of inputs. So, an idea could be a very low level response to a sensory input, eg the ideas that are triggered by the smell of bacon, such as vague memories of happy childhood breakfasts.

So, back to the original point at the start, X observes O, and makes a hypothesis about O (the conjecture). (this is often the 'aha' or 'I wonder' moment in science), and sets about finding ways to show to Y and Z that they are not hallucinating by expressing ways that Y and Z might be able to test the hypothesis. My statistics skills are rusty, but I suspect this is a different statistical process.

In my understanding, observation is followed by conjecture which is then subjected to attempts to refute it. The value of the conjecture (not the observation) depends on its ability to stand up to being refuted. However, a 'good' conjecture is not one that cannot be refuted but cannot be tested. I can conjecture that there is an invisible dragon in my garage, but unless I can provide ways for others to try to refute that, then it has little value as a conjecture.

Therein, by the way lies another interesting debate as to whether a stable and safe society (as one might wish to attain) breeds apathy and depression?

For the former - that is indeed the question. One would have to first decide what a positive direction is. For example, for the good of society? For the good of the planet? For the good of my country? For the good of my religion? Unfortunately, sometimes 'for the good of X' also means 'not for the good of not X'.

It would be like driving evolution. So, I want a dog that has floppy ears and fluffy fur. Selective breeding can probably attain that result in time. Therefore, I guess we need to start with a goal, as in business, decide where you want the end result to be, and work back from there. Now, of course, we would have to debate about what is desirable in terms of ideas. A totalitarian state would have quite different views than a democratic one, but even different democracies will differ in their desire for, say stability vs chaos.

Selective breeding of ideas is exactly what those that use facebook to influence political systems are doing now.

For the latter, I suggest reading Popper's "Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge" if you haven't already done so. He says it way better than I ever could. All good hypotheses are formed in this way, take for example, Newtons equations. These are all clearly put and testable, and thus one can attempt to find ways to refute them - situations where they might break down, such as sub-atomically, which Einstein did. This doesn't mean Newton's equations are wrong, but now their area of correctness is more carefully defined.

It is difficult to fight against the 'quick serotonin hit' of social media. Funnily enough, I've only just joined this forum, but I am finding it intensely rewarding, but then again I am a thinking engineer who is used to critical thought, so I guess I'm getting my serotonin hits here. I think critical thinking should be taught and practiced in schools. That would likely lead to a better society, in my opinion, but is a long term solution and begins with the teachers.

This could lead into an interesting debate on the value of capitalism and whether the trickle down effect actually works.

Very likely. I am curious about the different ways that ideas are valued across different cultures (and hence religions). And thus what we might learn by cross-pollinating between different 'systems'. Is there a superset of techniques that will result in the ultimate way to best evaluate ideas for 'goodness'? (yes, I am aware of the highly subjective nature of that comment).

I've often wondered about the pessimistic view of the 4 noble truths.
What is the optimistic version?
1. Life is joy
2. Experience brings joy
ergo
3. To continue joy, one must continue experiencing and questioning
4. (I don't have a path for this)