That's defining "free will" as magic. So of course, defined as such it cannot exist. — Olivier5

That's not my definition, it's from Google. "free choice" is a better term to work with than "free will" because it's more specific and focused.

"free choice" (a choice not imposed on you by others, or by circumstances). Or "agency" (the capacity for free choice). I am not comfortable with the notion of "will". — Olivier5

Now what is a "choice" and what do choices depend on?
When i make a choice it goes something like this: I am confronted with a constrained set of options (menu). Then i consider how hungry i am. If i'm really hungry i'll order the extra large meal. Do i drink Coke or Pepsi with my meal? I like Pepsi because its sweeter, but i know that sweets make me fat so i order water instead since i know that water doesn't cause fat gain. I ordered it to go because i wanted to get home in time for my favorite TV show that i know starts in about 40 minutes. I'm going to sit on the left side of the couch even though i like the right side better but i'm so tired i don't want to move.

Every one of those decisions was non-random, Each one was made for a reason, and that reason was acquired by neural processing of all my experiences up to that point. Any decision my organism makes for me is indistinguishable from the feeling of me doing it. If i had different experiences in my past i would have made different decisions accordingly.

Anyway, studies have been conducted that show that people are usually if not always wrong about the reasons they give for what they choose or do. Just another hint that we are not in control of of ourselves in the way you think we are.

At a lower level such as cells (we are made of cells) the same thing happens. depending on the internal condition of the cell, it acts to maintain homeostasis. Still many complex processes in the cell make it difficult to parse what exactly is going on. At the atomic level the same thing: Atoms always move to reduce their charge or energy level.

Do you believe atoms have free-choice? The free choice to choose what charges they will move towards or away from?

I don't believe you had a free choice in what you wrote, your choice was determined by the specific activation weights and thresholds in your nerve cells as your sensory signals propagate through the system. — punos

The issue is that you think free will exists outside of activations of nerve cells. That since I did something because of said nerve cells that must mean I had no free will. I do not know why you think that unless you actually tell me what you mean by free will. Because I believe that "What you just did was due to nerve cell activation entirely" and "You freely willed what you just did" can both be true.

All of this is "coerced", even though you don't feel coerced — punos

The fact that you put it in quotes shows you know that's not how people use coerced. No one ever said "I am coerced by gravity to stay on the ground". Coercion is done by other intelligent creatures through force or threats.

Do you have a simpler lower level example of free-will? — punos

I raised my arm right now. That was freely willed. You will say "Ah but that was because of nerves and yada yada". I will say that those two are not incompatible, since it was an uncoerced act. You will ask for another example.

This is a loop. I can't debate whether or not free will exists with someone unless we first agree what is meant by free will. So unless you answer my question, we won't get anywhere. What do you mean by free will?

Try doing this: Stop breathing for 30 minutes, and tell me if you feel coerced to breath at some threshold limit? — punos

Sure. I failed. But I was never coerced by anyone to breathe, so my breathing was freely willed. Again, that's not how people use the word "coerced". Inanimate objects and physics processes don't coerce. You know what "coerce" means, use it as intended please.

A "person" is a physical system made of atoms and molecules like everything else, and cells, tissues, and organs like every other organism. — punos

Ok let's dig into that a bit.

So, are you saying the person IS his atoms and molecules, or is "the system" or "pattern" of atoms and molecules? A classic thought experiment to highlight the difference: If a teleportation device dematerialized your body, then rematerialized it elsewhere identically, is that new body "you"?

A definition of free-will doesn't automatically make it real, it simply allows us to recognize it. Children define Santa Claus all the time, but it doesn't mean he's real. — punos

No one said that. The definition doesn't make anything real. However if there was a fat guy that lives in the north pole and hands out presents every chrismas everywhere in the world, then yes, santa claus would be real by that definition.

Similarly, if humans were able to do things without coercion, free will would be real by the definition of "uncoerced will"

Do you think AI has free-will, or if not yet will it ever? — punos

Not yet, eventually probably.

But again, we are working with two different definitions of free will here. You haven't told me yours.

As for atoms and cells and so on, no, because they don't have a will for it to be free. Wills are property of intelligent beings. How intelligent? Not sure, but more intelligent than bacteria. Somewhere in the arthropods is where I'd put it.

The issue is that you think free will exists outside of activations of nerve cells. That since I did something because of said nerve cells that must mean I had no free will. I do not know why you think that unless you actually tell me what you mean by free will. Because I believe that "What you just did was due to nerve cell activation entirely" and "You freely willed what you just did" can both be true. — khaled

I don't believe in free will inside or outside nerve cells. It's just a complex causal effect of energy and information that has been running since the beginning of the physical determinist universe. In simplest terms as i put it in a recent post on this thread; for me "free will" means "indeterminate determinism", which is a contradiction in terms canceling each other out resulting in nonsense.

The only way i can reconcile those terms into a meaningful phrase is to say that; free-will exists in the sense that everything that happens in the universe is actually the WILL of the universe (an entity unto itself), and the impossibility of anything outside the laws of the universe (its WILL) interfering with the normal and natural unfolding of determinism is what i would call free-will.

Will is what the universe will do by the power of its own physical laws, principles, and forces at every level and corner of existence. Determinism is a result of the WILL of the universe, it emerges out of indeterminism (infinite potential). In evolution for instance natural selection is a choice performed by the universe from among a constrained set of options. Charged particles have the "intention" to move away from like charges and towards opposite charges, a choice performed by the WILL of the universe through the force of electro-magnetism. The free-will of the universe propagates throughout all it's structures through cause and effect including us, imbuing us with its WILL. Since we are part of the universe and not separate; what we do feels perfectly natural and uncoerced from a subjective perspective. That is why we also feel that we have free will, because it's not our free-will it's The Free-Will that we are all intimately involved in.

The fact that you put it in quotes shows you know that's not how people use coerced. No one ever said "I am coerced by gravity to stay on the ground". Coercion is done by other intelligent creatures through force or threats. — khaled

Yea that's probably my fault since i reduce meanings to their most general sense to make it easier to do pattern recognition. That is mainly why i put it in quotes so as to not take its meaning so tight fitting. Etymologically 'coerce' means to restrain by another. The meaning can be used in other contexts much as poets do; sometimes using a familiar word in an unfamiliar context can yield certain insight. It still doesn't change what i mean though.

I raised my arm right now. That was freely willed. You will say "Ah but that was because of nerves and yada yada". I will say that those two are not incompatible, since it was an uncoerced act. You will ask for another example. — khaled

Are you saying that free-will only happens in humans or animals. What i am trying to do is remove as much noise and complexity to where more precise observation and analysis can be performed. I asked if you believe atoms have free will for this very reason.

So what is it; do atoms have free-will?

So, are you saying the person IS his atoms and molecules, or is "the system" or "pattern" of atoms and molecules? A classic thought experiment to highlight the difference: If a teleportation device dematerialized your body, then rematerialized it elsewhere identically, is that new body "you"? — khaled

A person is really a system of nested hierarchical patterns of energy and information. A person needs both to exist; energy is needed to actualize information. Information can not exist on its own, it is dependent on energy to hold or carry it. The combination of energy and information is called matter. From a religious perspective one can say that energy is spirit and information is soul and together they form the whole body system we call a person.

If i were to teleport to another location it would not be the exact same me before teleporting, but the new me wouldn't be able to tell any difference (unless something drastic happens). What the new me doesn't know is that i was just copied and the original remains at the original location; so which is me the copy or the original? Remember to consider Heisenberg's uncertainty principle in that the teleported version of me is not exactly a perfect copy. Even if it were an exact copy, the difference in location of my original still being around would give us instantly different quantum 'signatures' aka different identities in respect to the universe. Also, as soon as my copy walks off the teleporter he will acquire a unique identity by virtue that from that point on he has different experiences.

However if there was a fat guy that lives in the north pole and hands out presents every chrismas everywhere in the world, then yes, santa claus would be real by that definition.

Similarly, if humans were able to do things without coercion, free will would be real by the definition of "uncoerced will" — khaled

Yes a definition in and of itself is true in reference to itself, but not in reference to actual things in the world unless positively correlated through observation.

As for atoms and cells and so on, no, because they don't have a will for it to be free. Wills are property of intelligent beings. How intelligent? Not sure, but more intelligent than bacteria. Somewhere in the arthropods is where I'd put it. — khaled

How do you know that atoms and cells don't have a will. What is happening fundamentally differently in beings that have low intelligence like bacteria and higher intelligence like an arthropod. What is fundamentally different about arthropods that is not happening in the intelligence of lower life forms. Does intelligence start somewhere or is it a spectrum that never reaches absolute zero?

Notice how AI gets more intelligent the more parameters and hidden layers are added; nothing really new but more nodes for the neural network. If this trend continues then according to your definition of free-will; AI will reach a level of intelligence that would result in the formation of free-will. At that point what would have changed fundamentally? Wouldn't it be reasonable to say at that point that free-will is an emergent property dependent on the components directly below it? The only difference that it can possibly be is just a more complex way of processing information, a more integrated way of processing information, than is possible with lower intelligence.

It's quite simple actually. I like, most people like, chocolate, but try as hard as I can, I don't recall ever having chosen to like chocolate. The same goes for stuff that I don't like. Re Schopenhauer. Just waiting and praying at the same time now. Whistle with me ...

Both indeterminism and determinism are needed for our universe to work the way we see it work. — punos

I agree, and that is precisely the indeterminist view point, which states that some event are not predetermined, and others are. So you are not a determinist after all. Determinists like Harris consider that every single thing that happens was predetermined from the time of the big bang.

I agree, and that is precisely the indeterminist view point, which states that some event are not predetermined, and others are. So you are not a determinist after all. Determinists consider that every single thing that happens was predetermined from the time of the big bang. — Olivier5

I am an indeterminist first and a determinist second. What i am fundamentally trying to say is this:

Please notice that free-will is logically inconsistent in any case whether deterministic or indeterministic. You are not grasping the actual problem. It does not matter if you are arguing for determinism or indeterminism, the logic doesn't add up. In one case determinism: things are predetermined from the beginning and you don't have the freedom to deviate. In the other case indeterminism: things are undetermined and there is no determination, meaning that free-will can not determine anything in that system. If not through a deterministic mechanism how does free will determine anything? — punos

This is fundamental:
determinism = no free will
indeterminism = no free will
indeterminism + determinism = no free will

Do you understand what i'm saying here?

. In the other case indeterminism: things are undetermined and there is no determination — punos

This is just not true. Indeterminism is fine with determination existing, it just says that not every event is predetermined.

"free will" means "indeterminate determinism" — punos

Idk why you keep giving me your definition of free will in bits and pieces. Can you just define free will for me?

Not everyone assumes that free will requires indeterminism. I don't, for one.

Etymologically 'coerce' means to restrain by another. — punos

Yes, another creature. A physical force is not "another" in this context.

The meaning can be used in other contexts much as poets do — punos

But we're not doing poetry.

Are you saying that free-will only happens in humans or animals. — punos

It will happen in anything intelligent/complex enough.

If i were to teleport to another location it would not be the exact same me before teleporting, but the new me wouldn't be able to tell any difference (unless something drastic happens). What the new me doesn't know is that i was just copied and the original remains at the original location; so which is me the copy or the original? Remember to consider Heisenberg's uncertainty principle in that the teleported version of me is not exactly a perfect copy. Even if it were an exact copy, the difference in location of my original still being around would give us instantly different quantum 'signatures' aka different identities in respect to the universe. Also, as soon as my copy walks off the teleporter he will acquire a unique identity by virtue that from that point on he has different experiences. — punos

Ok. Because I would say it is the exact same me, since I think the "person" is the pattern (or informatino as you put it). Though I don't deny both a pattern and matter are required to exist.

But either way, we oftentimes assign actions to these patterns. For example: "The republican party destoryed the white house", even though it was spefic people that destroyed the white house, nay, specific pieces of flesh moving at the whims of chemical reactions in more complex pieces of flesh, nay.... you get the point. We can keep digging to lower levels, but oftentimes we assign agency to higher level things.

Similarly, I see the "pattern" that is a person, as responsible for said person's acts. In that sense, the person has free will, when said an action occurs because of said pattern.

It is essentially a view where "Your arm was raised because *insert chemical reaction sequence*" is the exact same sentence "Your arm was raised because of you".

It's similar to your view about how everything is the "free will of the universe" but more localized.

What is happening fundamentally differently in beings that have low intelligence like bacteria and higher intelligence like an arthropod. What is fundamentally different about arthropods that is not happening in the intelligence of lower life forms. — punos

Complexity. They don't have enough of it. Though how much exactly is enough is arbitrary of course. I said I think some anthropods are complex enough for us to say they have a will.

Notice how AI gets more intelligent the more parameters and hidden layers are added; nothing really new but more nodes for the neural network. If this trend continues then according to your definition of free-will; AI will reach a level of intelligence that would result in the formation of free-will. — punos

Yes.

Wouldn't it be reasonable to say at that point that free-will is an emergent property dependent on the components directly below it? — punos

Yes. And this is the fundamental difference between us. You seem to think that free will has to be some sort of voodoo black magic capable of disobeying the laws of physics, I just think it is an emergent property (or "pattern") that certain things have.

Obviously if you're looking for physics breaking voodoo black magic, you won't find it anywhere.

The only difference that it can possibly be is just a more complex way of processing information, a more integrated way of processing information, than is possible with lower intelligence. — punos

Yes.

This is just not true. Indeterminism is fine with determination existing, it just says that not every event is predetermined. — Olivier5

This is the way i think of determinism and indeterminism together in the universe. I will begin my description at the quantum foam level where many undetermined things happen for no real reason except chaos and randomness. The reason there is no reason is because there is no structure, information, or stable structures except for fundamental particles popping in and out of existence (matter/antimatter production and annihilation) almost simultaneously. This is where new stuff comes into the universe, simple little particles of minimum information frozen in energy. Some of these particles under certain self-generated chaotic conditions are able to maintain and remain without annihilating with its anti-partner.

The indeterminate aspect of the universe does not 'like' having these particles floating around and uses the principle of quantum entanglement to tag all particles (with a charge) in order to bring them back together what was once separated in the correct order (a sorting algorithm) to annihilate (rebalance). Different particles of different energies and properties but with different charges can come together without annihilating and forming the first composite particles like atoms.

After a enough atoms are formed (Hydrogen some Helium, and a little bit of Lithium) under the the force of gravity (an algorithm meant to keep things close together enough in an effort to bring things back to zero or balance). Once the first stars form the conditions arise where simple hydrogen atoms can fuse together to make more complex atoms with denser energy and information content (higher order structures). The star eventually explodes from pressure imbalances in its interior due to reduced energy output from spent fuel (Hydrogen).

The new and different heavier atoms are flung into space to once again form clouds of atom dust, until this atom dust begins to repeat another gravitational collapse but mixed with new hydrogen mixed in from other supernovae and remaining primordial Hydrogen. This results in a new 2nd generation star with a new development that didn't exist before in the first generation of stars. Planets made of a wide mix of these new atoms producing novel environments for new processes impossible in prior conditions.

Planets with their lower temperatures allow for these complex atoms to form new types of bonds among themselves giving rise to the first molecules, which eventually through the process of chemical evolution gave rise to the DNA/RNA molecules so important for the emergence of biological life in the form of complex molecular arrangements we call cells.

Cells are responsible for the first ecosystems which increases the speed at which evolution progresses. Complex symbiotic partnerships between different cells form the first multicellular organisms. The multicellular forms were more successful at survival. The hyper development of the nervous systems of some of these creatures in specific environmental niches began to increase to the point of the appearance of mammals, but specifically in apes and a few others.

The complex social systems that apes developed through evolution and an eminent opposable thumb were the factors that selected them out of the rest to develop into mankind; an intelligent tool using organism with the new capacity to think outside their own instincts, and process complex information through external network nodes outside themselves (other people or society) through complex language.

The emergence of this complex human society formed the first cultural structures beginning with shamanism, then more classical types of religion, this developed into philosophy and eventually science.. the peak of our current phase of development. Government and politics emerged from our early religious social constructs.

I'll stop here, but the point of this was to show how from indeterminism comes determinism and in general terms how determinism picks up where indeterminism leaves off. It was just a very simple and general description of the process or pattern that the universe follows. All of these levels of development were produced by the layer directly under it, determined by the rules of that system layer. There is no reason for any free-will to be involved in any of this. Unless you mean the free-will of the universe itself, but i'm sure that's not what most people mean when the say free-will (it's the personal version of free-will).

All of these levels of development were produced by the layer directly under it, determined by the rules of that system layer. — punos

This is the only thing in your post that I disagree with (also the animist bit about the universe having desires). In practice, you cannot derive chemistry from physics, and you cannot derive biology from chemistry. Each level of organization had its own rules and ways, that aren't reductible to those of the level below.

This is a very important principle of emergence: the rules too are emerging, not just structures.

It follows that each level of organization is causal in its own way.

The error you are making is very common among materialists: you assume, for no particular reason, that causation only works "from bellow". There is no reason for this assumption, and it can be disposed of.

Yes. And this is the fundamental difference between us. You seem to think that free will has to be some sort of voodoo black magic capable of disobeying the laws of physics, I just think it is an emergent property (or "pattern") that certain things have.

Obviously if you're looking for physics breaking voodoo black magic, you won't find it anywhere. — khaled

I'm not looking for voodoo science, but i appears or seems to me that people that believe in free will are believing in voodoo science. I'm just trying to dispel in others the notion that there are such things. I you think free-will is emergent then to understand a little better your stance can you tell me if you believe it's soft or hard emergence?

I do not believe in hard emergence, only soft emergence. Hard emergence is like voodoo science in my opinion.

If you agree with this:

The only difference that it can possibly be is just a more complex way of processing information, a more integrated way of processing information, than is possible with lower intelligence. — khaled

Then it seems that we have the same definition of free-will except that i just call it 'will' instead, but i think you are looking at it from a high level human and personal point of view while i'm looking at it from a low bottom level point of view. If one wants to understand exclusively the human world of subjectivity and interpersonal relationships and things like that then your perspective is probably appropriate for that purpose, for the most part. My purpose on the other hand is to understand the universe for what it is for itself from the perspective of the universe itself, the lowest level possible at the core of it all, where everything begins and ends (alpha and omega).

But either way, we oftentimes assign actions to these patterns. For example: "The republican party destoryed the white house", even though it was spefic people that destroyed the white house, nay, specific pieces of flesh moving at the whims of chemical reactions in more complex pieces of flesh, nay.... you get the point. We can keep digging to lower levels, but oftentimes we assign agency to higher level things. — khaled

What you say in this quote reminds me of how actually societies are organisms one order higher than human organisms. Micro-organisms make up and constitute organisms, and organisms make up macro-organisms.

Observe how our freeways resemble and function like veins and arteries transporting all manner of things around the system. Notice how our electrical transmission lines resemble a nervous system along with the internet as a giant distributed neural network (brain), or how our mining operations are like the digestive system, and the factories are like the organs that produce commercial products like an organism might produce organic products for the body of the organism. Is money a type of higher order blood for a macro-organism. Why do we call companies organizations, because they serve as organs of different types. Why is it that in business law corporations (related to corporeal 'flesh') have rights just like a regular person could. A corporation is an artificial person, and everyone that works in that corporation is a cell or tissue in its organization. I believe that these nested patterns are how the universe works to produce higher forms of consciousness and intelligence with higher and higher capabilities (like free-will perhaps). In this context what is the will of Apple corporation, or the will of a government 'body'.

Artificial intelligence is the emerging free-will (from its own perspective) of the system as a whole. It is still developing like a baby in the womb, but its getting there fast. All of it comes from the activity of human interactions in a cultural context.

I you think free-will is emergent then to understand a little better your stance can you tell me if you believe it's soft or hard emergence? — punos

Soft. Though I think you mean weak vs strong.

Observe how our freeways resemble and function like veins and arteries transporting all manner of things around the system. Notice how our electrical transmission lines resemble a nervous system along with the internet as a giant distributed neural network (brain), or how our mining operations are like the digestive system, and the factories are like the organs that produce commercial products like an organism might produce organic products for the body of the organism. — punos

I always had daydreams where I'd imagine parts of my mind as people, like in Inside Out. The other way seems interesting too.

But it seems we've reached agreement! A rare sight on this site. I don't see anything in your reply that I disagree with.

This is the only thing in your post that I disagree with (also the animist bit about the universe having desires). In practice, you cannot derive chemistry from physics, and you cannot derive biology from chemistry. Each level of organization had its own rules and ways, that aren't reductible to those of the level below. — Olivier5

How do molecules form? How can atoms form molecules yet at the same time have no effect on the molecules they form. If a molecule does something it is because of the combined effect of the atoms that make it up. There is no molecule apart from atom. Molecules can only be understood in terms of their atoms, or what else could you refer to in speaking of molecules. The charge of a molecule is the charge of the atoms together as one thing. The saying goes "the system is more than the sum of its parts". Water a molecule acquires the quality of wetness that does not exist when hydrogen and oxygen are isolated. Wetness comes from the emergent interaction of water molecules which is governed by the atomic charges and bonding angles between them.

Where does the quality of wetness come from in your view?

This is a very important principle of emergence: the rules too are emerging, not just structures. — Olivier5

Form follows function, and structure is form or information. With new emergent structures come new emergent functions or rules as you say. So yes the rules also evolve but only because structure evolves.

The error you are making is very common among materialists: you assume, for no particular reason, that causation only works "from bellow". There is no reason for this assumption, and it can be disposed of. — Olivier5

I don't think it's an error, and i'm not a materialist either. Explain to me how causation can come from any other place than from below. Tell me of a case where causation starts or comes from above downward. The only way i can see causation coming from above is by "causal reflection" which i described in a prior post, and is my explanation for the subjective feeling of free-will or free-choice.

If there is no reason for this assumption then is there a reason for assuming the opposite? If so what is it?

Soft. Though I think you mean weak vs strong. — khaled

Oh right.. sorry about that.

But it seems we've reached agreement! A rare sight on this site. I don't see anything in your reply that I disagree with. — khaled

Do we get an award or at least a certificate of completion?! :smile:

Do we get an award or at least a certificate of completion?! :smile: — punos

It's an unprecedented situation, I don't think they have anything like that yet

It's an unprecedented situation, I don't think they have anything like that yet — khaled

LOL :lol:

How do molecules form? How can atoms form molecules yet at the same time have no effect on the molecules they form. If a molecule does something it is because of the combined effect of the atoms that make it up. There is no molecule apart from atom. — punos

The shape of a particular molecule is not "contained" in or determined by its atoms. That is to say, one can construct several different molecules with the same atomic elements. And this shape is causal, it has consequences. There's a whole science on this, called stereochemistry. Check it up.

The shape of a particular molecule is not "contained" in or determined by its atoms. That is to say, one can construct several different molecules with the same atomic elements. And this shape is causal, it has consequences. There's a whole science on this, called stereochemistry. Check it up. — Olivier5

I know a little bit about stereochemistry, but you're making my point for me. A molecule as you say is constructed (structured) from atomic elements and it's CAUSAL as in cause and effect or consequence (your words). Structure affects what chemicals can do, and chirality is just a type of structure, or pattern in which atoms can connect to each other. They can't just connect however they want, they have a constrained set of possible arrangements, and the specific environmental conditions determine which arrangements are selected and actualized.

definition:
consequence = a result or EFFECT of an action (CAUSE) or condition. (in other words cause and effect)

Structure affects what chemicals can do, and chirality is just a type of structure — punos

Yes, but the point I am making here is that chirality makes no sense at the atomic level, it is an emerging property of molecules. So the laws of chemistry are not derivable from the laws of physics.

When you typed your sentence were you using your brain and nervous system to process your actions? Did you have a reason for typing the sentence, or was it a random sentence? I don't believe you had a free choice in what you wrote, your choice was determined by the specific activation weights and thresholds in your nerve cells as your sensory signals propagate through the system. At every step of the chain reaction the laws of physics determine the outcome. A choice is simply a causal chain reaction in your nervous system that weighs many factors that you are unconscious of. All of this is "coerced", even though you don't feel coerced; the whole process is perfectly natural. The reason you don't feel coerced is because there is nothing outside the laws of physics that can make it feel coerced; it's perfectly natural in that sense.

He is his brain and nervous system, though. So if his choice was determined by the specific activation weights and thresholds in his nerve cells as his sensory signals propagate through the system, then his choice was determined entirely by him.

The debate succumbs to a category error as soon as we start abstracting the self into different ways of being, like the conscious and unconscious, mind/brain and body, and apply selfhood to one aspect and not the other. It results in something so convoluted that it is a strange wonder why anyone even bothers.

If a being is capable of willing then it must be true of the entire being. If a being is not capable of willing then his actions must be determined by something else. Why do we limit the will to a tiny and arbitrary subset of actions but not to all of them, from the most obvious to the most hidden? He wills the blood to move just as much as he wills his arm to move, as he always does and must do, with the entirety of his living being. In any case, refusing to abstract the self in such a schizophrenic way makes the debate much simpler, in my opinion. Whatever action a human being performs is determined, decided, and chosen by that being; and until an action can be shown to be determined by anything else in the universe he has free will. No appeals to “laws of physics” and other metaphors need be invoked.

Explain to me how causation can come from any other place than from below. — punos

Explain to me why it should come from below.

Yes, but the point I am making here is that chirality makes no sense at the atomic level, it is an emerging property of molecules. So the laws of chemistry are not derivable from the laws of physics. — Olivier5

That doesn't follow. If not the laws of physics then from where would chemistry be derived? It just exists on it's own? What would happen to molecules if one were to eliminate the force of electro-magnetism? What would happen to atoms if one were to remove the strong force from existence? Are you saying that everything in chemistry would continue to function as if nothing was changed?

He is his brain and nervous system, though. So if his choice was determined by the specific activation weights and thresholds in his nerve cells as his sensory signals propagate through the system, then his choice was determined entirely by him. — NOS4A2

Well yes, i agreed with him that it is not false to think of it that way, but it's not the whole story either. There are more expanded perspectives that include more than just the singular organism or self, perspectives that include the environment as a whole system and an organism unto itself. From that point of view the will of the system is distributed over a wider and more expanded area. Will has a quantum nature, that is to say that will has a "particle/wave" nature. The perspective can be arbitrary, but i believe that the deeper and more expanded the perspective that includes all the emergent layers as one thing yields the truest point of view.

The debate succumbs to a category error as soon as we start abstracting the self into different ways of being, like the conscious and unconscious, mind/brain and body, and apply selfhood to one aspect and not the other. It results in something so convoluted that it is a strange wonder why anyone even bothers. — NOS4A2

I agree, which is the reason why i try to simplify the problem and bring it down to a lower level of abstraction that can be examined more clearly. The conscious mind or the self is a complex abstraction from more fundamental parts. Consensus can't be reached without first establishing some sort of stable standard of meaning. A significant portion of my interest however in this has a lot to do with how the communication breakdown occurs particularly with topics like this. It somewhat reminds me of how God in the Bible confused the language of the builders of the Tower of Babel, inhibiting their ability to understand each other.

He wills the blood to move just as much as he wills his arm to move, as he always does and must do, with the entirety of his living being. — NOS4A2

Can he make his blood stop circulating just by his will? Can he decide to be sleepy now, or thirsty? Can he feel happy or sad at will? There is a lot that is involuntary in the body, and it seems that those things need to be working before any voluntary action can develop. The majority of what we call 'self' is not under the control of the part of our mind that makes conscious decisions. It is a very small subset of the whole 'self'. There are many other lower smaller selves inside every self. It's selves all the way down, and all the way up like nested Russian dolls.

No appeals to “laws of physics” and other metaphors need be invoked. — NOS4A2

I agree with Einstein when he said "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler”. Everyone has their own idea of what simple is i suppose, but what does an explanation look like if no laws, principles, rules, or even metaphors are allowed? In what terms are we supposed to speak about it if not in the terms of what it stands on. This is what it means to 'understand' a thing; to stand under the thing that the thing stands on is understanding it. You want there to be a 5th floor without the ground of the 4th floor, and so on. Einstein also said that “We cannot solve problems at the same level of thinking that we were at when we created those problems.”

Explain to me why it should come from below. — Olivier5

Because everything has a ground on which it stands. You're talking about building castles in the sky on top of clouds. You think it rains down without the ocean first rising as vapor and condensing to fall from above. You think that ocean just decides to evaporate and make rain for no reason, isn't that the sun's fault? Do you think the sun came from the gods, and not from the force of gravity that compressed a cosmic hydrogen cloud into a ball of fusion?


These info-graphs may help illustrate, maybe:





What happens if you remove one of the layers of the pyramid?


Now you explain to me why it should originate from above?

Just to clarify. When i speak of the environment as an organism, or society as a super-organism (like ants), etc.. i'm really not being metaphorical, i am being literal. The literality of my "metaphorical" statements are a result of my perceiving the wider system i'm embedded in as one system with a complex but singular will composed of the average of all the wills within an arbitrary boundary. To remove the arbitrary nature of selecting among many boundaries, one should seek the widest or most inclusive boundary to gain the most holistic (holy) perspective.

One way to simplify these debates is to do one simple thing. Ask the other person you're debating what would need to be true or false in order to bring them to your side of things. If the other person answers that question and vice versa, then they both can get to work more effectively on addressing what really actually matters to the question at hand.

In PI Wittgenstein opined that a central phenomenological distinction between a voluntary action versus an involuntary action, is that in the latter case an action is accompanied with a feeling of surprise, whereas in the former case feelings of surprise are absent.

Elsewhere he made it clear that he didn't believe in an absolute theoretical distinction of the concepts. So he evidently didn't hold much regard for the 'pseudo-problem' of free-will. Certainty, the meanings and use-cases of those conceptual distinctions in say, behavioural psychology, are radically different from their application in logic and mathematics, phenomenology, criminal law, physics, etc.

E.g consider the fact that in Physics the causal order doesn't have to be taken as being the same as the temporal order, and in the causal analysis of a given system the "first cause" is defined arbitrarily according to it's use value; a presentist can consistently interpret their present actions as being the first-cause of their subsequent observations, including those observations that they interpret as memories.

You're not paying attention. Merry Christmas.

You're not paying attention. Merry Christmas. — Olivier5

You're probably right, and happy New Year. :-)

Can he make his blood stop circulating just by his will? Can he decide to be sleepy now, or thirsty? Can he feel happy or sad at will? There is a lot that is involuntary in the body, and it seems that those things need to be working before any voluntary action can develop. The majority of what we call 'self' is not under the control of the part of our mind that makes conscious decisions. It is a very small subset of the whole 'self'. There are many other lower smaller selves inside every self. It's selves all the way down, and all the way up like nested Russian dolls.

It’s difficult to think of these questions in the context of two or more abstractions, for instance the voluntary and involuntary, the conscious and unconscious, many selves, because it invariably pits them against each other when in fact they are highly integrated into one whole. Personally I try to think without them, supposing it is possible to do so.

What I mean by “self” is the extent of one’s being as it can be observed by others, a person or human in common terms, an organism in biological jargon—whatever you want to call it. It appears to us as one thing, not many. Every action the self performs, from doing a backflip to digesting food to pumping blood, not only is the self, but is controlled by the self by the observable fact that it doesn’t appear to be, or be controlled by, anything else. I am both the heart beating and the cause of the beating heart, both controller and controlled, so to speak.

The reason I refrain from limiting the act of “willing” to some subset of biology, whether conscious or subconscious, is because the act of “willing” appears to involve the entire organism. It isn’t helpful to look at it this way for something like biology or medicine, but for acts like willing, thinking, reasoning, and so on, I think it is appropriate. For what is willing without metabolizing or circulation or breathing?

While it is true I cannot stop my heart by thinking about it or furrowing my brow (by virtue of there being no way to perform the task in this manner), there is a wide variety of willful steps one can take to stop his heart, or become tired, thirsty, and sad. One can take a series of willful and conscious actions to see it accomplished—fasting, ingest medication, closing an electrical circuit with one’s hands, and so on.

Anyways…