So, the conscious Mind has no role in human behavior? — Gnomon

It's probably a focus short cut that other subconscious areas can use for reference to what's going on.

It's probably a focus short cut that other subconscious areas can use for reference to what's going on. — PoeticUniverse

Yes, the function of the Mind is to focus the body/brain onto aspects of the world that are relevant and important to the Self. What we know as "The Self", with its selfish Will, is not a separate thing from the body. Instead, it is a mental image of the integrated (Holistic) functioning of all parts of the body, including brain matter and the circulatory system. However, since most of us have difficulty imagining abstract concepts, we tend to create symbolic metaphors to represent the notion of "Self". And one way to imagine the invisible Menta-Physical notion of Self, is as a ghostly outline of the Physical body. Unfortunately, some people tend to reify that mental image as an immaterial Spirit-form running around outside the material Body-form. Of course, reified metaphors are OK for the dramatic purposes of Poetry, but not for the pragmatic probes of Science.

Speaking of "focus', I'd like to clarify what I mean by "Holism". 180 proof seems to think it means "anti-science" and "New Age/Eastern-religion", or "primitive mumbo-jumbo". But it's actually a philosophical focus on Whole Systems instead of Individual Parts. In fact, there is whole new field of Western Science called "Systems Theory", based on a holistic approach to complexity. As a non-empirical theoretical wide-angle focus, the Synthetic Systems perspective is contrasted to the analytical Reductionist approach. It doesn't deny the usefulness of dissection into constituent elements. It merely puts those puzzle pieces back together again to discover how the parts work together to generate a Function that the parts are not capable of individually. Synthetic Theorizing is the opposite side of the same coin as Analytical Reasoning.

Since you are open-minded about less familiar aspects of Science and Philosophy, I think you might enjoy reading the book -- Holism and Evolution -- that preceded the religious philosophy of New Ageism, and inspired 20th century scientists to broaden the scope of their microscopes to include the invisible features of Integrated Systems. In my own amateur philosophizing, I don't pretend to be doing reductive science, but merely continuing the ancient philosophical tradition begun by Aristotle in his second volume of Phusis (Nature), commonly called "Metaphysics". Not by dissecting Matter, but by looking into how the Mind categorizes Darwin's "entangled bank" of Nature into synthetic functional Concepts, such as "Species" and "Selves". :smile:


Synthesis : 1a : the composition or combination of parts or elements so as to form a whole.

Holism and Evolution :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism_and_Evolution

General Systems Theory :
An attempt to formulate common laws that apply to virtually every scientific field, this conceptual approach has had a profound impact on such widely diverse disciplines as biology, economics, psychology, and demography.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=bertalanffy+general+systems+theory

Holism and FreeWill :
So, for clarity, I will sometimes refer to my personal paradigm of Science as "Systems Theory", in hopes of losing the mystical baggage.

mental image — Gnomon

Of course, the subconscious also determines what gets into consciousness and then structures it from its parts but then it becomes a unified whole and is no longer reducible and it is this whole of qualia that perhaps then more easily becomes a reference focus for the subconscious if qualia are the highest point of the brain's own invented symbolic language.

if qualia are the highest point of the brain's own invented symbolic language. — PoeticUniverse

That's an interesting notion. The properties that we attribute to physical phenomena are abstractions from our sensory sensations. And those conceptions from perceptions are what we call mental "symbols" representing reality. I'll have to give that equation more thought. Those qualitative symbols may also be what Donald Hoffman calls "icons" that we "interface" with, as-if they were real. :smile:


The Case Against Reality -- Why Evolution Hid the Truth From Our Eyes
___Donald Hoffman, Cognitive Psychologist
Note -- the forum management has asked me to stop linking to my own blog for further information on the thread topic. and extended definitions of my terminology. But, if you are interested in my information-based review of this book, you can PM me for a private link. It's a non-commercial vanity blog under an anonymous pen name, so the ideas are free, and you won't be censured if you disagree.

those conceptions from perceptions are what we call mental "symbols" representing reality. — Gnomon

Plus, in our imagination we see very dim qualia that have about 90% transparency, and full qualia in our dreams.

Plus, in our imagination we see very dim qualia that have about 90% transparency, and full qualia in our dreams. — PoeticUniverse

Wow! Do you see fully fleshed-out Qualia in your dreams? Unfortunately, mine are still only semi-opaque. The reds in my dreams are still grayish, and the redness is only implicit. :meh:

Do you see fully fleshed-out Qualia in your dreams? — Gnomon

Yes, full, although now and then there are some slight mistakes, and my car never remains where I parked it.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/01/220107121453.htm

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/01/220107121453.htm — PoeticUniverse

Does your "blue spot" allow you to focus on Qualia, but then forget where you parked your car?

I visited a niece for Christmas, and she gets very stressed during holidays, presumably because she makes elaborate & creative plans, then gets distracted by several other priorities requiring attention. If you try to talk to her while she's putting-out several fires at the same time, she'll say "I can't think about that now".

When I was younger, I had similar problems with distractions that knocked me off-course from my own extensive to-do-list. She hasn't been clinically diagnosed as ADHD, but she takes Adderall, to help her focus on one-thing-at-a-time, instead of everything-all-at-once. I suspect that Ritalin and Adderall might have some effect on the "blue spot" in the brain. But, it's not enough. Do you have other options for taming scatter-brain, and focusing awareness on pragmatic Quanta, instead of idealistic Qualia? :cool:

then forget where you parked your car? — Gnomon

It's that I know where I parked my dream car but it isn't there any more. In last night's dream, I went back to where I parked my motorcycle but there was a giant electric fan in its place. Also, sometimes the neighbor hood streets and houses turn into a place I never been to; such creativity in the subconscious to model all that, making it as I pass through!

Train to be a ninja to gain focus.

Since the Metaphysics, Yet Again thread has faded into the usual counter-accusations of "woo" and "non-sense", I thought I'd resurrect the ghost of Christmas past, by opening the Pandora's Box of "FreeWill", and related philosophical conundra. — Gnomon

I just can't leave the ghost of Free Will in peace. Since this is one of the most polarized topics on the forum, I find it one of the most interesting as a philosophical exercise.

In one of the posts above, I mentioned the book that I was currently reading : The Single Simple Question that Challenges All Convictions. I eventually finished reading the book. Then I started a BothAnd Blog post to review it from my personal perspective, which seems similar to the author's. His father was a preacher, and the son of a preacherman. He doesn't specify the particular brand of Christianity he was indoctrinated in. But it probably was not very different from my own. And, like me, he bears no animosity to those who were not dissuaded by doubts.

Raised as a back-to-the-Bible fundamentalist Christian, I took moral freedom for granted. But later I began to ask myself some of the same questions Carter dealt with in the book. Contrary to the title, his layman's philosophical investigation was not limited to a single question. But the central issue for him was Freedom versus Determinism. The cover says : "Connecting the Conundrums of God and Immortality, Free Will, the Strange Reality of Quantum Physics, and Finding Purpose in Existence." So, I merely followed his trail of breadcrumbs through the maze of Metaphysics and Physics.

The book review originally had the same name as this thread : FreeWill and other Popular Delusions. But I decided to add "Unscripted" to qualify FreeWill, in view of my takeaway from the project.The review is only three pages, but the end notes and afterthoughts go on for several more pages. If that's too much to read, you can just look at the pictures. :smile:

PS___ Anyone who is sincerely interested in this topic can message me for a link to the book review.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/messages/inbox/gnomon

https://www.amazon.com/Single-Simple-Question-Challenges-Convictions/dp/1695354788

Two recent forays into the thorny morass of "free will":

Volition? — 180 Proof

Schopenhauer — 180 Proof

I too was indoctrinated with the "Free Will Theodicy" (Spinoza was probably excommunicated for calling it "superstition") and had rejected the doctrine even before I'd graduated from high school (or read Spinoza et al) on the grounds of human "will" being "created" too weak for each of us to freely choose in every circumstance to overcome "temptation" (e.g. "Adam & Eve" in fuckin' paradise), or later as the notorious Hitchslap goes "we are made sick but commanded to be well." A bait-n-switch scam of perennial priestcraft (Nietzsche). Deus vult, not "free will", is the source of "evil"; if the bible is to be "believed", a life of suffering and afterlife of eternal torture for each and every one of us (unworthy, wretched, "original" sinners!) follows inexorably from "His Plan". Anyway, actions, not wills, are free (Schop, Witty, Dewey, Arendt, Dennett et al).

Free will may need to be unpacked into two categories:

1. Positive free will: Compliance with one's will.
2. Negative free will: Defiance of one's wills (free won't).

Our own experiences inform us that we have more positive free will (easy) will than negative free will (tough).

I just can't leave the ghost of Free Will in peace. Since this is one of the most polarized topics on the forum, I find it one of the most interesting as a philosophical exercise. — Gnomon

I believe that we all live and act as if we have free will. So to deny free will is a self-deceptive attempt at hypocrisy, to force oneself to belief something which is contrary to what is demonstrated by one's actions.

But the interesting thing is that once we let go of this attempt at hypocrisy, and accept the reality of the freedom of the will, it forces a metaphysical separation from the commonly accepted worldview which supports modern scientism. There is an implicit incompatibility between the concept of free will, and the idea that the entirety of reality is determined by fundamental laws, the laws of nature.

When we give metaphysical priority to our lived experience, that we think, act, and live as if we have free will, and recognize that this is clear evidence of the reality of something which transcends the laws of nature, we develop a completely different perspective of the laws of nature, and the reality of time itself. This is a perspective which displays the basic incompatibility between itself and what is commonly accepted as 'the reality of time' in the discipline of physics, casting doubt on the conception of "space-time". So we can now understand that the laws of nature are not necessary. This is the perspective developed by physicist Lee Smolin in his book "Time Reborn".

I too was indoctrinated with the "Free Will Theodicy" — 180 Proof

I may not have made it clear in the post above, that the author of the book wanted to prove that FreeWill is believable, but after all his reasoning, concluded that humans are slaves to Determinism.

As a young adult, I went through a similar self-analysis of my own "theodicy", and came to basically the same conclusion. But, in my later years, the Enformationism worldview (science-based but information-centric), led me to look at the "facts" from a different perspective. So, my current "theodicy" is a BothAnd complementary compromise between Fatalism and Optimism. I think humanity has just enough freedom & force to nudge the flood of evolution into a rivulet on a course that is more suitable for human purposes. That new direction probably won't take us to heaven, but it may make the journey more enjoyable and purposeful. :smile:

Free will may need to be unpacked into two categories: — Agent Smith

Yes. I suspect that the feeling of Free Will is easier to justify in the modern era of Democracy and Technology, than it was back when the average human seemed to be a pawn at the mercy of the powerful-&-willful men & gods & natural forces. My own half & half category is a sort of compromise between religious Positivism and scientific Negativism on the topic. Like most things in the imperfect real world, Freedom is relative. :smile:

When we give metaphysical priority to our lived experience, that we think, act, and live as if we have free will, and recognize that this is clear evidence of the reality of something which transcends the laws of nature, we develop a completely different perspective of the laws of nature, and the reality of time itself. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. But ironically, some posters on this forum prefer to give "priority" to the reductive specific laws of Physics, and to diminish the importance of holistic general principles of Meta-Physics. In their view, nothing transcends the absolute laws of Lordly Nature, as revealed by the prophets of Physics. But, Einstein stuck a pin in the Classical Science bubble, by revealing that the world is Relative and Random. It's only "natural" selection that gives evolution a positive direction, by enforcing certain standards of fitness for progress.

Unfortunately, as humanity gains more independence -- via cultural selection -- over the nature gods, our feeling of freedom from Fatalism makes some of us cocky. As-if we can ignore or manipulate universal natural laws with our little local levers of technology. That hubristic arrogation of power is what gets the willful & prideful in over their heads. Yet, a more modest attitude may allow us to get some of what we want, without running roughshod over everybody else. That doesn't give us transcendence over nature, but does permit humans to collaborate with Nature. :smile:

The Single Simple Question that Challenges All Convictions. — Gnomon

We’ll have to pick at some of the clues to see what might come out of them although not seeing anything about free will or not at the outset.

Then one more foray into the counter-intuitive alternative reality of Quantum theory, found a tiny glimmer of freedom in the non-local features of Entanglement.9 He hoped the “spooky action at a distance” might break the chain of causation, because “entangled particles transcend space & time”. Yet, he still couldn’t see how ghostly particles of matter could add-up to human freedom from the constraints of causation.

That entangled particles correlate non-locally over great distances means that objects don’t have to be near each other to have relation, that the relational information is more primary than distance, even perhaps that two particles are as to us bit two looks of the same system in some higher dimensional realm. So, something holistic would be going on, the same system being a whole.

(Or it is that the relation is as one long ‘rod’ of connected quantum fields such that when we see one end rotating clockwise face on then the other end has to be seen rotating counter-clockwise face on.)

Big Bang Cosmology indicates that many particles may be entangled with some others, having have been all together at the start although probably not everything is entangled with everything.

What would this say about its ‘will’ before and after the Bang and how would that work?

Probably too soon to say, so we’ll have to pick at other clues.

…

The Eternal Basis (Potential Enform Action), being the Mandatory Causeless, cannot have any input and so this may indicate that its bedrock is randomness, but, nevertheless, it is all there at once and so it could also somehow be the potential of all possible paths of action at once in a superposition—a Whole.

What would tip it to form a universe the way it did, with elementary matter and anti-matter having asymmetry?

Perhaps too soon to answer.

So, my current "theodicy" is a BothAnd complementary compromise between Fatalism and Optimism. — Gnomon

Respectfully, I feel my absurdist prognosis is more physically grounded ...

Apotheosis or extinction. — 180 Proof

Posthuman or bust. — 180 Proof

:fire: :flower:

We’ll have to pick at some of the clues to see what might come out of them although not seeing anything about free will or not at the outset. . . . . Big Bang Cosmology indicates that many particles may be entangled with some others, having have been all together at the start although probably not everything is entangled with everything. — PoeticUniverse

As an amateur philosopher, I don't concern myself with reductive physical particles, but with the holistic meta-physical -- or "sub-physical" if you prefer Sean Carroll's sub-quantum category -- synergy that entangles grains of sand into solid concrete. Concrete has an inter-active matrix that binds weak loose parts into strong cohesive wholes.

The whole point of Holism is that multiple particles are entangled into a unitary system that has properties above & beyond those of its elements. So, if you are looking at the clues in isolation, you'll never see any emergent phenomena, such as Life or Mind or Free Will. I suspect his allegiance to reductive methods may have blinded Peter Carter to the very evidence he was seeking. :smile:
PS___In detective movies, the gumshoe follows the clues, and tells the DA, "I know he's guilty, but I can't prove it". Observation finds the clues, but intuition binds them into a verdict.

Holism ; Holon :
Philosophically, a whole system is a collection of parts (holons) that possesses novel properties not found in the parts. That something extra is an Emergent quality that was latent (unmanifest) in the parts. For example, when atoms of hydrogen & oxygen gases combine in a specific ratio, the molecule has properties of water, such as wetness, that are not found in the gases. A Holon is something that is simultaneously a whole and a part — A system of entangled things that has a function in a hierarchy of systems.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

Systems theory is the interdisciplinary study of systems, i.e. cohesive groups of interrelated, interdependent parts that can be natural or human-made. Every system is bounded by space and time, influenced by its environment, defined by its structure and purpose, and expressed through its functioning. A system may be more than the sum of its parts if it expresses synergy or emergent behavior.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory

MOTTO OF HOLISM

Respectfully, I feel my absurdist prognosis is more physically grounded ... — 180 Proof

Respectfully : "To each his own". :wink:
An old physically-grounded joke says that "Opinons are like *ssholes . . . everybody has one, and they stink". :joke:

Absurdism : the belief that human beings exist in a purposeless, chaotic universe.

Absurdism : the belief that human beings exist in a purposeless, chaotic universe. — Gnomon

Yeah, these litany of shallow definitions you lean so heavily upon in your posts are just lazy crutches crippling your intellectual credibility. :eyes:

Yeah, these litany of shallow definitions you lean so heavily upon in your posts are just lazy crutches crippling your intellectual credibility. :eyes: — 180 Proof

Boy! Your Nihilist & Determinist attitude has really made you sour and cynical. :naughty:

However, if your philosophical worldview is actually Absurdist or Existentialist -- as defined below -- then there may be some hope for you yet. Keep your narrow mind open, at least a crack. :smile:


Absurdism vs Nihilism :
Nihilists, specifically passive nihilists, believe that there's no intrinsic meaning in life and “it is futile to seek or to affirm meaning where none can be found”. ... Absurdists, on the other hand, hesitantly allow the possibility for some meaning or value in life.
https://thinkingdeeply.medium.com/absurdism-vs-nihilism-explanations-and-differences-of-both-philosophies-cf571efe75e9

Determinism vs Existentialism :
In short, determinism stands against the notion of human responsibility and accountability, arguing instead that human beings do not will their own choices. On the contrary, existentialists suggest that accountability is essential to basic human functioning.
https://www.yoair.com/blog/which-side-of-philosophy-do-you-reside-on-determinism-vs-existentialism/
Note -- accountability requires some freedom of choice

Respectfully, I feel my absurdist prognosis is more physically grounded ... — 180 Proof

“Those of us who want to believe that human beings have free will must find sufficient evidence that our minds are something more than can ever be attributed to physical causes.”
___Peter Carter, The Single Simple Question

Carter makes it clear that, although he has rationally concluded that causal determinism prohibits human freedom, emotionally he cannot accept that his beautiful world is inherently meaningless, that his loved ones are automatons, or that life itself is a farce. So, he holds out hope that his calculations are wrong.

This pathetic hope-against-all-hope is one of the "absurd human passions" that Hume referred to as inappropriate for a perfect deity. Carter must be aware that neither the world, nor its reasoning creatures, are perfect. Yet, his working definition of "FreeWill" seems to require a perfect & omniscient being. Hence, his project -- of proving that Determinism is not absolute -- is bound to fail. However, if he could accept a less-than-perfect definition of freedom, his desire for a world in which Reason is not ridiculous might prove to be reasonable. :smile:

Freedom within Determinism :
“Determinism is a long chain of cause & effect, with no missing links.
Freewill is when one of those links is smart enough to absorb a cause and modify it before passing it along. In other words, a self-conscious link is a causal agent---a transformer, not just a dumb transmitter. And each intentional causation changes the course of deterministic history to some small degree.”
___Yehya
BothAnd Blog, post 48

Holism ; Holon :
Philosophically, a whole system is a collection of parts (holons) that possesses novel properties not found in the parts. That something extra is an Emergent quality that was latent (unmanifest) in the parts. For example, when atoms of hydrogen & oxygen gases combine in a specific ratio, the molecule has properties of water, such as wetness, that are not found in the gases. A Holon is something that is simultaneously a whole and a part — A system of entangled things that has a function in a hierarchy of systems. — Gnomon

A real example strong emergence is needed, if there is one. The liquidity is because the tiny hydrogen atoms roll around and also roam between (as ions) the much larger oxygen atoms.

2. Negative free will: Defiance of one's wills (free won't). — Agent Smith

'Free won't' is just the usual subconscious neural 'voting' that comes from another part of the brain will than did the initial proposal.

Yes, the function of the Mind is to focus the body/brain onto aspects of the world that are relevant and important to the Self. What we know as "The Self", with its selfish Will, is not a separate thing from the body. Instead, it is a mental image of the integrated (Holistic) functioning of all parts of the body, including brain matter and the circulatory system. However, since most of us have difficulty imagining abstract concepts, we tend to create symbolic metaphors to represent the notion of "Self". And one way to imagine the invisible Menta-Physical notion of Self, is as a ghostly outline of the Physical body. Unfortunately, some people tend to reify that mental image as an immaterial Spirit-form running around outside the material Body-form. Of course, reified metaphors are OK for the dramatic purposes of Poetry, but not for the pragmatic probes of Science. — Gnomon

Bingo. I've spent days in another thread providing a LITANY of scientific studies that show there is no evidenc ethat suggests this isn't the case. The body, consciousness, and will are all the same thing: a projection of the structures of the brain properly working in symphony; this is the Self.

The rest of what you remark upon is a bunch of Cartesian, Skinnerian , Kantian garbage... Mystic explanations for clearly natural phenomena. Great work.

'Free won't' is just the usual subconscious neural 'voting' that comes from another part of the brain will than did the initial proposal. — PoeticUniverse

Free won't is the result of the brain categorizing domains of avoidance, building coherent value structures within those cognitive domains, and protecting their place in that domain through reinforced mechanisms of valuation as outlined in neuroeconomics. Free will IS free won't. The Will is the full expression of the brain and the thoughts and behavior that emerge, or do not emerge from it.

This pathetic hope-against-all-hope is one of the "absurd human passions" that Hume referred to as inappropriate for a perfect deity. Carter must be aware that neither the world, nor its reasoning creatures, are perfect. Yet, his working definition of "FreeWill" seems to require a perfect & omniscient being. Hence, his project -- of proving that Determinism is not absolute -- is bound to fail. However, if he could accept a less-than-perfect definition of freedom, his desire for a world in which Reason is not ridiculous might prove to be reasonable. — Gnomon

OK 'God' is not, but the Eternal Basis may have a way of coming up with something workable although not ideal, which we have to figure out, which may help out with the 'free' quandary of free will.

Would a non determined spontaneous will choice count as free?

See here: https://nautil.us/is-the-universe-open_ended-9803/

Free won't is the result of the brain categorizing domains of avoidance, building coherent value structures within those cognitive domains, and protecting their place in that domain through reinforced mechanisms of valuation as outlined in neuroeconomics. Free will IS free won't. The Will is the full expression of the brain and the thoughts and behavior that emerge, or do not emerge from it. — Garrett Travers

Well said.