Hence, why don't people just stop pretending that this idea of free will is even coherent? — rlclauer
Seriously, though, it is that nature has led us into the illusion that when a thought comes along seemingly out of nowhere that we thought of it instantly in consciousness, thinking we have conscious agency.
…Until, for some, informed by science, who realize that there is an opaque first storey of the neurological beneath our second story.
…Until, for some, informed by science, who realize that there is an opaque first storey of the neurological beneath our second story.
Could you elaborate on this? — rlclauer
We could have an executive function, but this is not a ghost in a machine, but rather, is itself another deterministic program which serves supervisory functions. — rlclauer
As so, other or higher brain areas can then access the global result/qualia produced and represented in consciousness, and go deeper with it, if need be, this being part of why the brain evolved consciousness as useful. The brain developed its own symbolic internal language, using qualia symbols (which is quite amazing), and so it could be that these are good shortcut notation for the brain to continue on with, and also, as another part of usefulness, would be good to put into memory as a whole, to have more quickness when referenced.
…there is no such thing as a "free will" or an "agent which causes." — rlclauer
Is there anything I could be reading, particularly on that last sentence
It doesn’t really matter to the past (that’s already been determined) - only to our experience of what lies ahead.
— Possibility
, that could help thoroughly explain the idea? Or are you sort of inventing it as you go along? (I hope that doesn't come across negatively, in my mind, all of the now-famous philosophers were "inventing it as they went along") — ZhouBoTong
The concept of potentiality I'm familiar with isn't about any success. Success is a judgment. The acorn's potential is something we recognize by looking at it in context. The potential we're really seeing is that of the whole universe. There are thousands of ways the acorn could become a tree. We could think of this as thousands of possible worlds. In each one, the universe was just the way it needed to be to produce the tree in that possible world.
Likewise there are possible worlds in which the acorn was eaten or buried (so as to plant a hickory tree in my boxwoods, which actually happened. :razz: )
Among all of these worlds is a very special one: the actual world. — frank
According to this, what we perceive as "the self," could just be the product of this symbolic communication within the brain. Perhaps what appears to be our "self" is also just another program in the brain, a kind of, compiler, or organizer of sorts. Either way, I think it is clear that these processes have evolved to continue the biological mechanics of the body, which is really several different systems working symbiotically (consider the influence of the gut microbiota).
I think it is painfully clear to see, there is no driver, there is no "influencing spirit" and so what humans usually refer to as "free will" or that aspect of the collective organism that is our body, is really just the output of these several inputs, which themselves are causally determined, and thus, there is no such thing as a "free will" or an "agent which causes." — rlclauer
I wonder how one would explain the process of education’s influence on a ‘fixed will’ in anything other than metaphorical language, though. — Possibility
How do such apparitions reappear, sink and swell,
Float and change, withering the acids of time’s reflux?
We know why—prions. — PoeticUniverse
I think this is still consistent with fifth dimensional interaction: the way we access memory demonstrates significance irrespective of time; it isn’t structured chronologically, but rather in relation to hierarchies of value. — Possibility
withering the acids of time’s reflux? — PoeticUniverse
CPEB-3 — Possibility
I think the spellchecker changed 'weathering' or 'withstanding' to 'withering' here. — PoeticUniverse
Memory obeys nothing outside of itself; — PoeticUniverse
if you can point me towards the research you’re particularly referring to. — Possibility
But I think you’re making an assumption that they have evolved simply to ‘continue’ their various processes for as long as possible.
There is more to our collaborating systems than mere biological mechanics. There is an elaborate information processing system, which relies not just on the symbiotic relationships within the organism, but relationships with the rest of the universe. This also consists of several different systems working symbiotically. But this system and these processes have not evolved to continue the biological mechanics of the body, but to acquire information about the entire system.
I’m not arguing against cause and effect, or determinism, for that matter. But the process by which we can predict future events from the information we have about past events is so far below our capacity as human beings that it’s almost laughable to reduce human experience to this.
As Carlo Rovelli says in ‘Reality is Not What You Think’:
“When we acquire new information about a system, the total relevant information cannot grow indefinitely, and part of the previous information becomes irrelevant, that is to say, it no longer has any effect upon predictions of the future.
In quantum mechanics when we interact with a system, we don’t only learn something, we also ‘cancel’ a part of the relevant information about the system.” — Possibility
but our will is free in relation to the future. Not what could be - but what can be, when we include ourselves. — Possibility
The entire process of evolution seems to make things better at surviving. That is basically how it is required to function. It has two things, an environment, and an organism. The only medium of interaction between those is survivability. So I just cannot accept your argument that "human information processing is somehow geared for some higher thing than survival." In my opinion, your view is highly romantic, and sort-of theological. You are attempting to imbue an importance on human cognitive capacity, which I thing is not justified. — rlclauer
If you are not arguing against cause and effect or determinism, why are you suggesting there is some higher order significance in human cognition? Is cognition a function of the brain and nervous system? If it is, is it not bound to the rules of cause and effect? And if that is the case, isn't imagining all of this higher order stuff just a lack of information. As Sam Harris argues, if we have perfect information about the brain and the physical state of every particle in the body, could we not predict outcomes of human behavior? — rlclauer
Look closely enough at your own mind in the present moment, and you will discover that the self is an illusion. The problem with a claim of this kind, however, is that one can’t borrow another persons contemplative tools to test it. To see how the feeling of ‘I’ is a product of thought - indeed, to even appreciate how distracted by thought you tend to be in the first place - you have to build your own contemplative tools. Unfortunately, this leads many people to dismiss the project out of hand: They look inside, notice nothing of interest, and conclude that introspection is a dead end. But just imagine where astronomy would be if, centuries after Galileo, a person were still obliged to build his own telescope before he could even judge whether astronomy was a legitimate field of inquiry. It wouldn’t make the sky any less worthy of investigation, but astronomy’s development as a science would become immensely more difficult. — Sam Harris, “Waking Up - Searching for Spirituality with Religion”
But I am still struggling to accept this. To be fair, I think there is still an aspect of what you are saying that I am not understanding. — ZhouBoTong
Are you saying that "will" emerges from a deterministic system, but once it emerges it is not subject to determinism? — ZhouBoTong
Once we fully develop the cognitive capacity to interact with and understand the universe from this position, then the will is potentially unconstrained. — Possibility
Any chance you have seen the South Park episodes about Imagination Land? These lines remind me of that.
When you say "develop the cognitive capacity" are you referring to current individuals or future evolution? Are there intellectual exercises I can do to achieve this? Or when you say "develop" do you mean after a few thousand generations of positive evolution? — ZhouBoTong
Also, when you say 'unconstrained' do you mean "unconstrained except for the laws of physics?" or "truly, entirely, unconstrained"? The second option is why I thought of imagination land.
Perhaps you mean it is unconstrained BECAUSE it is JUST in our imagination? — ZhouBoTong
To be honest, I’m not sure how much of what holds us back is due to cognitive capacity and how much is understanding how to access it. As I mentioned before, my two children, raised in the same household, have developed very different cognitive capacity to each other. And yet, the Bible has evidence of five-dimensional awareness from Genesis onwards, so we’ve actually been developing it for thousands of years already. We just suck at it. It’s fear mainly that keeps us from choosing awareness, connection and collaboration at every opportunity... — Possibility
But I find it interesting the way we look at the laws of physics, as if they are what limit our capacity to achieve. The process of actualising our imagination starts with what is possible, and is then constrained by what potential we see in how we experience and collaborate with the universe that would enable us to achieve it. Only then would it be constrained by the time we have available, and finally by the laws of physics. — Possibility
I get that you are approaching this rather rationally, but all this paragraph says to me is "they used to be able to do it, and we can't". I still don't even know what "it" is. — ZhouBoTong
I am not even sure that is what you are saying, but my other interpretation would be along the lines of "in our imaginations exist unlimited possibilities. We can analyze those possibilities to determine the best course of action. Once a course of action is selected, it is subject to the laws of the universe."
But that doesn't seem to be saying anything much at all? — ZhouBoTong
But it’s where we ‘determine the best course of action’ that I think we’re falling well short of our potential. — Possibility
I think you are correct in where we do not have free will; see when we are born we have to construct a reality from our surroundings and therefore receive a biased view on our world and of people. So, we base decisions based on our experience and environment growing up. We do have the ability to choose though, you are correct.
But that is all we have. No one on this earth or in history has free will. I argue it doesn't even exist. — Fruitless
What is free will? — Fruitless
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.