So you agree, do you, that we ought not to create them then? Or at least that there is a desert-based case for drawing that conclusion? — Bartricks

I would not agree to not create them just because they might suffer at some point or other like everyone else does. I have suffered but not so much that i regret living or being born. Other people may have a different experience and opinion about their lives, they may hate their lives and feel it pointless. I would at least want to be given the choice, even if it takes being born first. What i'm saying here is that i can not presume to know what the child's own morality will be in relation to being born. He may or may not want it but i don't and can't know. It would feel unfair to deny him or her the choice.

One thing that can change or vary my conclusion is the present level of potential suffering in the present environment and my assessment of that potential for the next generation. If i deem it acceptable then i would have a child, if not then i will not.


Full disclosure i don't have children and don't plan to have any.

Probably in most cases if not all to some degree. But our opinions about that are arbitrarily influenced by our specific culture. Take for example the Spartans, and how they treated their children.

Do you think that a newly born baby deserves to come to harm? — Bartricks

No, not personally, but i also think it's a necessary "evil" because my moral stance you could say is that evolution is what's important not our personal feelings.

Which premise are you denying? — Bartricks

Moral judgements such as it's right or wrong are fine to have, anyone can have an opinion about it. My point is at least for me that moral imperatives are only a small part of the big picture, and that nature or evolution does not "care" about our individual moral stances. It trucks right through them. My perspective on this and many other issues are heavily rooted and contingent in that we don't actually have free will. Not that i want to discuss free will in this thread. I just try to consider things from an objective and evolutionary perspective. I don't think it will be a fruitful discussion if we have differences in that respect.

So? No one has an obligation to a species, but a person(s). — schopenhauer1

Some people feel an obligation to the species (Elon Musk for one), and some don't.

That is simply a fact, not a moral claim. — schopenhauer1

I'm not too keen on the moral angle, but the facts i think should inform one's morals.

doesn't mean we MUST decide to go along with that pressure — schopenhauer1

That is true, but in that case that genetic line or species gets eliminated. That someone or an entire species decides not to procreate indicates that it is not viable, and thus self selects for exclusion.

The point of procreation is to continue the species, and to evolve. All the potential harm, or problems the child might face in this world is part of the evolutionary pressures of the selection process.

Some of the early gnostics were antinatalist, mostly i think because they thought it evil to trap a soul or spirit in a physical prison like a flesh body.

I think Artificial Intelligence is another stage in the evolution of the universe. Humans may be edged out by AI 'persons.' — Jackson

Funny you mentioned that because i think that is exactly correct.

The human eye has many fallible parts unfortunately. — TiredThinker

You do realize i was making a metaphor?

Exactly, that is why it must be examined.

Doubting Thomas! — Agent Smith

Doubting Thomas was the only disciple to ever touch the resurrected body of Christ. His doubt earned him that privilege.

As for solipsism — Agent Smith

When we sleep and we dream, isn't the mind creating a simulation of a universe? We even take it as actual reality, except if you are lucid dreaming. This also applies to the idea of solipsism, where the entire dream is one persons mind, but with seemingly independent characters populating it. How do we know that this reality is not of the same nature as a dream reality? Maybe the nature of any and every reality is of the nature of dreams. Again... speculation speculation.

Well yes, but like i said, only if it's trying to simulate it's own universe at the exact resolution of it's own universe.

In computer science it is known that it takes more computational power to simulate a computer system than the computer system itself has; typically, much more. I think this principle can be generalized:

For any system S, any complete simulation of S, S', must be more more complex than S — hypericin

I think this is true if one assumes that the simulation is of the exact quality and complexity of the universe the computer making the simulation belongs to. I don't think it's so if the computer is aiming to simulate a simpler type of universe than the universe the computer is in.

I would assume entities in the simulation would not be able to tell any difference within their own simulated reality, and they wouldn't be able to compare their computed reality with the computing reality. If these simulated entities decided to create their own simulated reality, it would have to be even simpler than theirs too.

One way i think the computing limitations can be overcome is by simply extending the time the computer needs to calculate the next time step. For the entities in that simulation time would feel as if it were running normally. Since each simulated entity is computed together with the rest of the simulation, they experience things in time with the simulation. Meaning that from one time step to the next, no matter how long it takes to calculate that time step, the entities would perceive it as instantaneous. The speed of "light" in their universe would probably need to be slower than in the computing universe to compensate for the difference in computing speed, but it wouldn't feel any different to them. This is all mostly speculation of course.

It's not as simple as taking any old drug in any old way. Doing it like that is hit or miss, and usually more miss. When i was younger i was a walking chemistry experiment. I've done almost every drug at one point or another. It wasn't about fun and parties. I was curious and interested in everything including my own mind, and i figured that i can understand my mind better if i experiment with it by disturbing it. It's been said that we swim in the mind like fish swim in the water, we don't have an external reference to compare it to. A fish that's never been out of the water would conceivably not even be aware of water, but if you disturb it by removing it from it's watery environment it quickly knows there is something about water. That fish just got wiser. In the same way by disturbing my own mind temporarily with a drug i can begin to compare the differences with and without the drug.

I learned early on that to get the most out of my drug experience in the context of my goal i had to pay close attention to my set, and setting, and dosage (Timothy Leary). Shamans and medicine men since early on had formulated procedures and rituals that would prepare them for the "sacrament". What i chose to do was combine the drug with meditation. The point of meditation (emptiness meditation) was to settle the mind in order to observe deeply it's natural state. Isolated and hermetically sealed away from external influences. Once i was able to achieve a reasonable baseline state (not easy), i began to test different drugs. I would then sit calmly and observe what it did to me. I wouldn't try to understand it while in it, i would wait to think about it after the drug wore off.

To do this i practiced contemplation (not meditation). I found that if i just had the intention to understand, and i didn't stress out about it, then my mind while sober would begin to make suggestions for what i wanted to know. It wasn't always immediate, many times it would take days, weeks, and even years. Having the experience was enough to get my unconscious mind working, as long as i had sincere interest. Most of the insight or "enlightenment" that i received from doing this was not so much about physics or history, or something external like that, it was a personal self-knowledge of how i work internally. It wasn't usually something i could really right down, or prove to another person. It wasn't that type of knowledge. It was knowledge tailored to me alone, but the effect it had on my i thinking made me a better person eventually. It helped me not just understand myself better but other people too. Because i had a window into my fundamental internal processes, i began to see intimations of the same processes outside myself. In other people, society, history, nature.. in the sober state i began to feel ultra connected to everything. I began to recognize and even feel myself in other people, animals, bugs, the Earth, the universe.. So now i know that the I in me is the same I in you who are reading this, and that's just one of the few things i actually can say about this topic. Anything else would probably sound even more ridiculous, especially to the uninitiated.

“Know thyself, and thou shalt know the universe and God.” - Temple of Apollo at Delphi

Descriptions are really good for art, literature, instruction, but it's not sufficient on its own for science, and understanding.

Consciousness doesn't cause itself, Will is neither free nor a Determinism: — Joshs

I agree that consciousness dosn't cause itself, but i don't see how it follow that will is neither free nor deterministic.

The causa sui is the best self-contradiction that has ever been conceived, a type of logical rape and abomination. But humanity's excessive pride has got itself profoundly and horribly entangled with precisely this piece of nonsense. The longing for “freedom of the will” in the superlative metaphysical sense (which, unfortunately, still rules in the heads of the half educated), the longing to bear the entire and ultimate responsibility for your actions yourself and to relieve God, world, ancestors, chance, and society of the burden – all this means nothing less than being that very causa sui and, with a courage greater than Munchhausen's, pulling yourself by the hair from the swamp of nothingness up into existence. — Joshs

I agree with all of the above quote.

Suppose someone sees through the boorish naivete of this famous concept of “free will” and manages to get it out of his mind; I would then ask him to carry his “enlightenment” a step further and to rid his mind of the reversal of this misconceived concept of “free will”: I mean the “un-free will,” which is basically an abuse of cause and effect. We should not erroneously objectify “cause” and “effect” like the natural scientists do (and whoever else thinks naturalistically these days –) in accordance with the dominant mechanistic stupidity which would have the cause push and shove until it “effects” something; we should use “cause” and “effect” only as pure concepts, which is to say as conventional fictions for the purpose of description and communication, not explanation. In the “in-itself ” there is nothing like “causal association,” “necessity,” or “psychological un-freedom.” There, the “effect” does not follow “from the cause,” there is no rule of “law”. — Joshs

My issue is mainly with this last section. How is "un-free" will a violation of cause and effect? I think he is playing with words here perhaps in a disingenuous way. Description and explanations again are arbitrary distinctions. If you observe a thing and describe it, that's perfectly fine, but if you want to do something with it, or go even deeper then it has to be converted into an explanation (but it doesn't have to be true to begin with). Take the explanation and generalize it, then experiment and verify. If the generalized explanation holds then it may be considered more true than not. Further and deeper development can continue. We don't understand anything from descriptions unless we generalize, they are just static pictures, explanations are more akin to video. Still not the territory, it's just a map of the territory. An explanation can be described, and a description can be explained. I would use a description, not an explanation to communicate a concept like cause and effect, but use an explanation to produce technology, or even to discover deeper principles of nature.

I don't understand how he makes the conclusion that there is no cause and effect in the "in-itself". I kinda get a funny distrusting feeling about him. Just saying.

The self analysis i'm referring to is not meant to figure out if there is free will or not, it's meant to expose personal assumptions, desires, insecurities, fears, etc. that will affect how one perceives, relates, and handles certain ideas. For example, if one believes in God or is religious, and if one begins their inquiry trying to prove God, or at least trying not to disprove God, then one will avoid and reject anything that they think might take them in the direction they have decided already not to accept (even if it's potentially true). You must be like a mirror, able to reflect what is with as little distortion as possible. This should be obvious to most people i think.

I myself have used and still use certain lessons i've learned from Buddhism, Hinduism, but especially Zen Buddhism. Meditation i have found works for achieving a state of empty objective neutrality (as much as possible). In my opinion it would be a waste of my time really to even attempt to tackle big external questions with big internal implications if i haven't done my internal prep work.

It's useful to think about it like vision. Some people have bad vision which keeps them from seeing the world accurately. These people then need to correct that handicap by going to an ophthalmologist to have their vision analyzed to then fashion lenses that will correct for the visual distortions. Then they can go and see the world for what it is, they can drive for instance and not kill anyone by accident, or mistake things for other things, etc..

:up:

Change is inevitable, it's a constant in the universe.

What is conditioned are the possibilities, then there is random selection from the possibilities (probability). In no sense is free will present in that situation.

And thus free will is negated, because you can't choose to fly, just like you can't take short cuts by walking through walls, or any such thing.

Ok, but just tell me how the distinction helps us answer the question of free will?

If things are indeterminate are you able to determine your own choice?
If things are determinate are you able to determine your own choice?

I

I find the dichotomy of free will/determinism to be false. — Jackson

I've already stated that the dichotomy is not between free will and determinism. It is about determinism and indeterminism. Free will is simply something thought to be contingent depending on which one is considered to be true.

It does not matter to me one way or the other. I make my decisions without reference to free will or determinism. — Jackson

This is also the way i operate. I never wonder about my free will when making decisions, because it's pretty much settled as far as i'm concerned. I'm open to being proven wrong of course or i wouldn't be sincere.

How is free will illogical? You would have to show the concept is inconsistent with itself. — Jackson

Tell me first if you are a determinist, an indeterminist, or both (like me). I think i can logically show it's impossible with any one you pick. I'm not sure that you can show that it is possible regardless of the one you pick. Which one is it?

Newton said God made physical laws. — Jackson

This is irrelevant. Newton was also a virgin when he died, and had dreams or desires of burning his mother. But this brings up a point i've been pondering...

Does it unsettle you in any way to consider that free will might not exist. Do you have a personal preference? Like i said in a previous post, it's important to examine oneself before one examines problems or issues outside oneself. I can easily see why some people may be disturbed by the notion. Especially if one believes in God, or is seeking to believe in God. Do you believe in God?

I don't think Newton and others invented determinism, i think they discovered an aspect of nature. It is at least true under certain constrained conditions. Others have also discovered indeterminism such as in quantum physics, and this is also true. We tend to always want to through the baby out with the bathwater.

I have reason to believe that nature is both indeterminate and determinate, both have been shown to be true in one or some other aspect of nature. Complex systems like the ones we are familiar with operate in the range between chaos and order (indeterminism and determinism respectively), generally termed "edge of chaos". You need both for complexity to evolve. Chaos (indeterminism) produces variations in the environment, while order (determinism) selects from the environment. This is the nature of evolution.

I should say that i'm not very concerned about social constructs because a social construct may be true or false like anything else. There is no reason why a social construct must be true or false exclusively. In fact social constructs are part of evolution, where human ideas undergo variation in individual minds, and then are selected out of the environments of minds (memetics) those ideas that confer some kind of advantage to the system in question. Then further variation and further selection ad infinitum.

Like i've already stated in prior posts, my point is that in any case (determinism or indeterminism) the possibility (not the probability) of free will is absurd and illogical. What i have been consistently asking here is for someone to provide me with at least a concept that does not violate what we already know to be true, and that can in principle show that free will is in fact possible and consistent with logic.

I also want to say that our ideas and models of the world do not have to match exactly with the way nature "really" works, it need only be sufficiently true for our purposes. Science is evolving like everything else and it is not in some already perfect state. The better our models get the better we know to make better models, etc..

“…it is important to distinguish between determinism as a feature of a scientific model and determinism as a metaphysical thesis about nature. According to the metaphysical thesis, all physical properties in nature are definite and determinate, and the evolution of the natural world is fixed uniquely. (The complete and instantaneous state of the world fixes its past and future with no alternatives.) — Joshs

Not sure how the distinction between scientific models and metaphysics helps, but i would agree in general with what is quoted above.

This thesis hardly follows from the fact that we can construct nonstochastic dynamic-system models of observable phenomena. — Joshs

I'm having trouble with this part, how does it hardly follow?

It seems to me that Evan Thompson (never heard of him, will look him up) is just making arbitrary distinctions between in this case a scientific model and a metaphysical proposition. I don't necessarily see anything particularly "wrong" about it, but i'm not sure how much the distinction helps in answering the question of free will. Perhaps you can help me understand how it does if you think it does.

anything can be justified. — Agent Smith

Yes and no. You can justify anything but one would have to tinker with the premise of the argument. The logic itself can not yield a false conclusion if the correct premise is used. I think that would be the only way.

So, what does an argument that proves free will look like, eh? Makes you wonder, don't it? — Agent Smith

Well that's why i said that. I have wondered about it, and it would probably look like some undiscovered force that can negate for example charge coupling. Like some kind of particle degaussing force. It's the only thing i can think of, do you have any ideas? But the problem is that it would probably violate some conservation law.

Well i still think it's as easy as conservation laws, you don't have to wonder after some complex process if there is more or less energy. You are guaranteed to have the same amount of energy coming out as you had going in. I see this almost as an analog of determinism in the sense that there is no chance of deviating from law, no matter how much complexity and time is involved. One can probably even call it the law of conservation of will, or maybe the law of conservation of order.

Consider how a crystal grows in a saturated solution. If the crystal in question is salt then one would see a matrix or lattice cube formation expanding. The salt molecules have no choice but to attach to the growing crystal in a specific way. Positive to negative, never positive to positive or negative to negative (like Legos). Only one way (determinism). This is simple to figure out but when more than one molecule is involved then things become more complex and varied, but never does it violate the charge rule.

Positive and negative charges represent a type of energy imbalance which is always trying to resolve itself by neutralizing with an opposite charge (energy minimization). It is the only reason things move in the universe, except for gravity which works in a different way because it's a different thing. But all the forces are deterministic, i've never seen or heard of indeterminism outside the quantum realm.

The only thing that can convince me of some type of macro-indetermanancy that leads to free will agents is to show me the mechanism by which it is enabled. Apart from that everything points to macro-determanancy, and i have no reason to think otherwise.

Nature is lazy i.e. it wants to minimize energy expenditure for any given task. Rivers flow in such a way that it takes the shortest path down from it source to a sea/ocean/lake. — Agent Smith

Water usually meanders and curves as it flows. That is why rivers are not straight in the long course. You can see this also happening perhaps in the shower as streams of water flow down the tile or glass in a sideways sinusoidal flow pattern. I think it has to do with the angular momentum of the water molecules. Besides it's not really the same when dealing with complex adaptive systems like a human being. You're "decision" to zig-zag is contingent on the confluence of many internal factors mostly psychological and unconscious that were themselves trying to minimize their energy states. Those internal energy states probably take presidence over other energy states at different levels.

This may be interesting to you: Free energy principle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_energy_principle

Thank you, and it's quite alright. We don't need to agree exactly every time, but we should understand each other, and be able to reason together. I may not know you, but i know the I in me is the same I in you. :-)

Are you sure it is binary? Either free will or determinism? — TiredThinker

The dichotomy is not to do with free will, but between determinism and indeterminism. The difference between determinism and indeterminism is that determinism enforces a definite trajectory of development or unfolding with no possible deviations from natural law.

Indeterminism states that things don't have to have a cause, because things can behave in whatever random way. An example of indeterminism would be like a positive particle that is attracted (not repelled) to another positive particle or refusing to move at all. While in determinism the particle has no choice but to obey the law of electromagnetism, gravity, or what have you.

Doesn't determinism imply that that exact end state of the universe needs to be a particular way and thus a particular trajectory is needed? — TiredThinker

Yes, the trajectory and end state of the whole universe is determined at initial conditions. A good analogy for this would be to say that when an egg is fertilized, an organism begins to develop along a very specific trajectory until it's final form or state is achieved. If this type of development were open to the free will of any of its parts or even environment, then structural abnormalities will develop in its systems jeopardizing the organism's viability.

For the proper functioning of the universe or any system all the parts need to do their job correctly every time, not just some of the times.

When one is asleep and having a dream, even though one might interact with characters and things in the dream those characters are just projections of the dreamers mind. All that really exists in the dream is the dreamer, although it may not appear that way. Is this not a form of solipsism?

It one were to apply this concept to the "real" world, then one can consider this reality to be someone's dream and either one is the dreamer or the dreamed. In either case it would be a form of solipsism. All interactions would be self interactions. Ultimately i think the nature of the universe may hold a very similar quality to this idea. We may all be manifested aspects of the universal dreamer, in the dream we call reality.

In the context or system that i'm describing i like to think of the word "will" as what a thing will do. What a thing does is contingent on its function, and its function is contingent on its shape, form, or structure pattern (form follows function). So a thing WILL do what it does by virtue of how its pattern can interact with other patterns in it's local environment. Free will is to say that a thing can do what ever regardless of its function or inherent pattern. Consistent patterns will fail to form, things will loose their necessary functions within a system. Structures that do their own thing would resemble cancer cells in a biological organism. Not to say that certain circumstances can't cause abnormalities in a structure, but it wouldn't be because of free will. The mechanism for free will is not possible.

I'm a computer programmer, and i have for some years now programmed simulation experiments that follow what i've outlined (in parts not in whole). I've been able to produce novel forms that can interact with each other, and complexify. At this time i'm trying to produce self created emergent laws along with patterns that can produce new emergent levels. I'm looking into how Marchov chains can be used and incorporated to produce better simulations of this kind, along with simple neural networks that self assemble (self-organization).

The apparent novelty that we see develop in macro states of organization was determined at the moment the seed pattern emerged from chaos. All the implications are inherent in that original pattern. All it takes is time to develop or evolve through pattern mutation and environmental selection.