Does Free Will Exist?

[Slytovhand]

what what what what what?????

New Ideas/concept are created through random activation of decision loops within the brain. For a reason yet unknow, as you think about something (ie: activate several neuronal loops within your brain), orther patterns will shoot up and join the mess, at random (cause the electron was here instead of there).

Now, I admit, after reading this, I thought to myself "maybe I have a misunderstood on the word 'random'", so I did a google:define. And guess what... nothing came up that I didn't really expect. (well, ok, stuff on bands and all... oh, and the sheared carpet...)

I'm thinking that once again, someone here is using the term 'random' to mean 'we don't understand it yet'.

No, the brain doesn't do 'random activation of decision loops'. Otherwise, pretty much everyone would be insane. Just imagine where those thought processes would lead us if they were truly random. Common sense truly wouldn't be common - it would be random.

There is quite clearly a pattern involved. There is some basis behind the firing of neurons, and some specific reason as to what will go where. Humans are complex little beings, so it makes psychology pretty much a pain in the butt (but only cos that's where a lot of ppl keep their sense). But that doesn't mean we and our psyches are random.

And Ped and I have both asked the question which has yet to be touched on (other than in 'simplistic' terms) - what about true AI?

New Ideas/concept are created through random activation of decision loops within the brain. For a reason yet unknow, as you think about something (ie: activate several neuronal loops within your brain), orther patterns will shoot up and join the mess, at random (cause the electron was here instead of there).

I thought that was because of our experience and our genetics?? And genetics is how the brain started out (or is that in debate??) and our experience is now 'randomly' imprinted into the brain.

Which does bring us back to the question I asked but was brushed aside as being an 'enormity'... at what point do we get free will? When we have 1 cell in the womb? A brain? A fully-formed brain? When we start to think? When we start to experience? When we can interpret that experience? Because... at one point or another, the brain hasn't existed except in potential. It is genetics (which is determined by genetics. And thus, we can (perhaps will, but I'm not holding my breath) figure out just how those experiences get imprinted into the brain. Since the 'mind' and 'us' is now being defined as a purely physical construct, and that 'me' is made up of genetics and experiences, which then brings it down to genetics and genetics - because it is those genetics which will define not only how the brain is made, but how the brain will be made...and changed. This is part of the rules that you have to play by.

Free will being a function of the brain?? That's only by your definition, and only because you are choosing to define it that way.

Sub-atomics?? I seriously doubt that they are truly 'random'... just another example of "we don't know, probably won't".

Weather?? Meh, I'm betting we get that one in the next 50 years... if not 20.

Pedersen, a question (and that's all it is at this moment in time...). Do you think it's possible for other parts of the universe to not be affected by all of the laws that we are, but are bound by other laws. And, while doing so, are able to interact with this part of it? If we take this as a premise, would that mean that any entity (or whatever may be defined as one) be able to have free will, or is just as limited as ourselves?...5:34 am, at work... not thinking )

Next, yes, I am thinking that most of our science is going to be re-written Well, certainly a nice chunk of physics might get a bit of a kick. But then, how was the science of sociology prior to humanity walking this earth??

Time Lord souls?? Well, no TARDIS, no Daleks, and no companions... but yes, I can see a place for it, and it serves... though obviously with qualification. But I can appreciate that non-believers would see me as a total and utter looney

Ooh... dropping that hot coffee into my lap was predestined since the beginning of time...cool

Oh, and I'd say free will entered the universe when we did - but 'we' isn't merely a physical body!

What, you have rotating shifts... sucky! I have standard times, just all graveyards.

[Pedersen]

Since we seem to agree on the majority of physics, I'm going to let that go, and instead focus on the "logical" argument you present.

Sure.
New Ideas/concept are created through random activation of decision loops within the brain.

Okay, so now the brain has decision loops. If we analyze this terminology choice, we find that the brain has at least two places responsible for all decision making. And these places are run in loops. Now, something running in a loop tends to run the same way each time. Breaking out of any given loop is a central theme of quite a few stories. So, it's reasonable to assume that the loops in the brain fit the "classical" definition of loops, and will provide the same output each time they are run. However, I'll be generous, and assume that by "decision loop" you mean "decision making processors", which take available inputs, perform some work on them, and produce some output.

Now, you are asserting that those decision making loops are activated at random. Since they are random, the rational agent (i.e.: the self) is unable to choose which decision making processor will handle making the decision, thereby removing a fairly critical aspect of the decision making process, and thereby reducing the level of "free will" that is even possible.

All of this ignores the nature of the decision making processors, though. These are items that are not under the conscious control of the rational agent. As such, the decision making processor must act without the oversight of the rational agent. Again, this limits the amount of free will that is even possible.

For a reason yet unknow, as you think about something (ie: activate several neuronal loops within your brain), orther patterns will shoot up and join the mess, at random (cause the electron was here instead of there).

So, now the rational agent will be subjected to random joinings of random ideas due to action on a subatomic level. The rational agent is unable to choose which ideas to explore next. Instead, random action governs what it will ponder next. Again, reduction in the amount of free will possible.

You will thus be faced with novel ideas (the marriage of known concepts in a pattern you never considered before), and the only thing that will keep you from chosing to accept them, act upon them, write them down, is you. you are free.

Actually, by your own statements above, the only thing preventing me from acting on them is the random action at the subatomic level. If the random action does not provide me with the idea to write the idea down, then I am unable to contemplate that idea. Again, reduction in the amount of free will possible.

Since this all process happens within you brain/body complex, and is integrated to the environment's stimuli, the only this remaining to chose this or that pattern of though is your conscious mind.

As it turns out, though, thanks to the random action and random ideas that occur, it seems that the conscious mind is quite unable to do anything on its own other than wait for the right random subatomic motion to allow it to conceive of doing something.

With all the reductions in even the possible amounts of free will that come about as a result of your argument, it sounds more like we have no free will, as opposed to actually having it.

I'd have to say that your "logical proof" only serves to strengthen my position on the lack of free will, not weaken it.

I'm thinking that once again, someone here is using the term 'random' to mean 'we don't understand it yet'.

No, Slyt, I decided to pretend for a bit, and state that, for the sake of his argument, truly random does exist. Not just "we can't measure it", but genuinely, truly, random. I think you'll see it didn't really help his case very much.

And Ped and I have both asked the question which has yet to be touched on (other than in 'simplistic' terms) - what about true AI?

I've read and re-read this thread about four times now, and I can't find it. I'm pretty sure that I saw DrT state that, since the entire mechanism would be known and understood, then even a true AI would not have free will. Since I can't find it, I can't prove it, though.

Pedersen, a question (and that's all it is at this moment in time...). Do you think it's possible for other parts of the universe to not be affected by all of the laws that we are, but are bound by other laws. And, while doing so, are able to interact with this part of it? If we take this as a premise, would that mean that any entity (or whatever may be defined as one) be able to have free will, or is just as limited as ourselves?...5:34 am, at work... not thinking )

I've never been to other parts of the universe, so I can't speak with any degree of certainty, unfortunately. However, I do believe that the actual laws of phsyics hold across the universe (not our understanding of those laws, since I think we've got a lot of things wrong that we will find out about eventually), but the actual laws? Yes, I believe they hold across the universe.

As such, I believe that any entity which interacts with our universe must be limited by those laws. And if an entity were to find ways to violate some of those laws, I think things would get very ugly very quickly.

Time Lord souls?? Well, no TARDIS, no Daleks, and no companions... but yes, I can see a place for it, and it serves... though obviously with qualification. But I can appreciate that non-believers would see me as a total and utter looney

Nah, just having a different set of spiritual beliefs. Of course, I now have to ask: Your beliefs seem to allow souls to move through space and time at will. Are they actually attached to our bodies then? Or does the body function for a while without the soul? Furthermore, does this mean that we should be able to remember things from the past?

[Slytovhand]

Just quickly cos I'm not at work (Ha! I challenge anyone else to use that line!! )

Firstly, I wasn't thinking about all laws applying equally. So, there are 'laws' in place which dictate which other laws apply how strongly and where (for wants of better words). We already know this to be true - time isn't always 1 second/second - gravity affects it. Black Holes throw a real dent in the birthday parties one expects.

Our mathematicians have 'proven' the existence of multiple dimensions, and I believe that various physicists are using those proofs to prove String Theory. So, our universe is still one great big pile of massively unknown phenomenon that we humans are gaping at like infants at a mobile... So it's not a matter of 'violating' the laws, but being in a different relation to the ones that we have a certain relationship with.


And since you asked the question, very quickly... 'we' have a 'soul'. We aren't really the soul, cos there's lots we're cut off from, or not aware of (obviously), but it 'resides' in an area (for want of a better word) outside of time and space. It, for whatever reason, drops 'spirits' down to the various bits of the multiverse - in different times, dimensions, places - presumedly to gain XP and go up a level...(well - to learn directly instead of merely indirectly... because...well.... because... why do people go climb mountains???) These 'spirits' are a better term for 'us', and they are the 'us' that can drop bodies and experience multiple physical lifetimes worth of experiences.

Why don't we remember? Well, there are a couple of answers for this. Firstly, it's the spirit doing the reincarnating, not the soul, so we don't get to synchronise with the mother ship and download all available data - it wouldn't be worth it... for the second reason. Secondly, in order to experience something as a human, you must experience it solely as a human. You can't do the "what's it like to be a bird?" while still thinking those human thoughts. You can't really find out what it's like to be a prisoner while knowing that you can step out that door anytime you want. Although, having tasted freedom, you can appreciate what imprisonment is really like... which is why the spirit will recall some information. We humans have really strange tendencies. Some are really obvious to see the cause of, others not so. Why do some people have phobias for no apparent reason? Or interesting feelings towards people and places? Or particular habits?? And why, for such people as myself, have certain things going through the head that fall into the category of 'memory'?? Some do get past life recall. But the death process is pretty harsh for most who become attached to the physical body (given #2 above). So too is the birth process. But... there are techniques which one can do which can help in general, and one of the end results of doing those techniques past life recall vastly better - because it confronts the things in us that 'we' want to forget. Humans are very good at trying to forget things. So good, it's become automatic!!


Now, Pedersen, I have to ask you a question. It's been asked before, but not quite answered. What is this 'I' that is spoken of in this thread?? The self?? Is it merely a physical construct from the workings of the brain - so the brain and mind are one and the same? Are they different fish? Does the brain have anything to do with the self at all??

[DrT]

Since we seem to agree on the majority of physics, I'm going to let that go, and instead focus on the "logical" argument you present.

actually, you have yet to prove that 'physics rules the universe' and 'free will' are incompatible. I would think that is important, since it's the concept you're basing your entire argument on

Okay, so now the brain has decision loops. If we analyze this terminology choice, we find that the brain has at least two places responsible for all decision making. And these places are run in loops. Now, something running in a loop tends to run the same way each time. Breaking out of any given loop is a central theme of quite a few stories. So, it's reasonable to assume that the loops in the brain fit the "classical" definition of loops, and will provide the same output each time they are run. However, I'll be generous, and assume that by "decision loop" you mean "decision making processors", which take available inputs, perform some work on them, and produce some output.

more or less, with one important point: it's able to feedback on it's latest output an modify the decision process the next time around according to the new data.

Now, you are asserting that those decision making loops are activated at random.

no. that is not what I wrote.

I said that in the mess that is the decision making process, which is not a loop, but a combinaison of a multiple loop (think fractal), some loops will be activated at random: ideas and concetps will be linked in way that were unfathomable and random (or not undertood yet, if that pleases you). some loops.

So, now the rational agent will be subjected to random joinings of random ideas due to action on a subatomic level. The rational agent is unable to choose which ideas to explore next. Instead, random action governs what it will ponder next. Again, reduction in the amount of free will possible.

No.
Again, it's not what I wrote.
Though random loops are indeed created and add to the decision process, the conscious mind may or may not accept to act upon them.

Since the rest of your argument is based on your misreading of my argument (it may be my fault, I may not have expressed myself properly, hopefully this clarification helped) I'll stop there.

The main point here is that since some of our decisions are the fruit of ideas created in an unfathomable and random fashion, and that we are free to act upon them or not (at random, or not, I may after all decide to do something on the simple premise of 'why not?' and that's pretty close to random), we have free will.

[Boozy]

There is a book by the physicist Evan Harris Walker called "The Physics of Consciousness" that deals with free will and neuroscience, how the brain makes decisions, and the nature of consciousness.

Neuro-physics is still a science in its infancy. Currently there exists a theory that random electron firings affect decision-making in the brain, but this is far from proven. The book makes a good case for it, but doesn't come to any conclusions.

Edited to add: I finally managed to find the book in my library. The publication date is 2000, and this is the last thing I've read on the subject. I felt I should add the caveat that my information is not up-to-date.

[Slytovhand]

I know what Ped is going to say, so I'll just jump in and say it now...

firstly, Dr T, what precisely is your definition of the word 'random'? Because it quite clearly isn't the one that Pedersen or I are using, as we've both pointed out (a few times).

actually, you have yet to prove that 'physics rules the universe' and 'free will' are incompatible.

True, but it is a presumption that has been thrashed out, and yet to be disproved, nor even effectively countered.. hence why this thread is now on page 5.

@Boozy - cool! I'd imagine there have been further publications on it, but it would be interesting reading (if brain-wracking...). I'd also be thinking it would be pretty damn hard to prove 'random electrong firings' in a working brain... certainly not with today's technology. I'm interested, though, in "doesn't come to any conclusions" - does it make counter arguments?

[Pedersen]

no. that is not what I wrote.

It distresses me that I have to help out your arguments by stating things like "For the sake of argument, let's assume that you are correct, and blah happens" and then, after doing that, I have to explain your argument to you, it really does.

So, let's examine what, exactly, you wrote (again):

New Ideas/concept are created through random activation of decision loops within the brain.

In this sentence, the word "random" is used as an adjective. It is, therefore, modifying the word "activation". The definition of random is "a lack of order, purpose, cause, or predictability" (from Wikipedia). Activation is used as a noun, in this sentence. Activation is defined as "the execution of an operation" (from McGraw-Hill). "of decision loops" is a prepositional phrase. In this sentence, it used to state what is being randomly activated. "within the brain" is a prepositional phrase as well, and is stating the location of the random activations. "new" is an adjective modifying "ideas/concept", which is the subject. "are created" is the verb.

Therefore, in this sentence, you have very clearly, using the accepted rules of the English language, stated the beginning of your supposition. Namely, that through a process which lacks order, cause, purpose, or predictability, the execution of the operation of decision making is commenced. Furthermore, since you did not modify "ideas/concept" with the word "some", you are making the statement that all "new ideas/concept" are processed through the "random activation of decision loops within the brain".

This also means that any new idea must go through the same process. If I have the idea to write my new idea down, it must, therefore, have gone through the random activation process.

So yes, that is very much what you said. If it is not what you meant, then please clarify. Ah, I see you did:

I said that in the mess that is the decision making process, which is not a loop, but a combinaison of a multiple loop (think fractal), some loops will be activated at random: ideas and concetps will be linked in way that were unfathomable and random (or not undertood yet, if that pleases you). some loops.


No.
Again, it's not what I wrote.
Though random loops are indeed created and add to the decision process, the conscious mind may or may not accept to act upon them.

Ah, I'm sorry, you didn't. You've now added in the qualifier "some" to "loops". Since that was never in dispute, that does not truly help your position. I also see that now you are choosing to add in the idea of "fractal loops". Changing your terms is acceptable, since I see this as refining your position. Telling me that I have misread your argument after changing your terms, though, is not.

Oh, and something else to ponder: Fractal is probably not a very good choice to add to your position. Fractal indicates something which is self-similar, regardless of the level of detail. This means you can zoom in on it infinitely, and always see something that has very similar appearance and structure.

And, finally, we have a disturbing hole in the remaining bit of your "clarification": "The conscious mind may or may not accept to act upon them". Above, you have posited that the decision making processors are randomly activated, which asserts that the conscious mind has no control over their actual activation. You have also provided no potential mechanism for their operation (not even logically) that would allow the rational agent in question control over them. All of this combines to prevent the rational agent from having the ability to possess free will. It is, instead, enslaved to random activation of decision making processors and their (opaque) operations.

Since the rest of your argument is based on your misreading of my argument (it may be my fault, I may not have expressed myself properly, hopefully this clarification helped) I'll stop there.

Actually, I would have to posit that your position was misstated, not misread. In fact, you can now even say "woops, that was bad, let me try again" and start from scratch. I'm flexible like that.

The main point here is that since some of our decisions are the fruit of ideas created in an unfathomable and random fashion, and that we are free to act upon them or not (at random, or not, I may after all decide to do something on the simple premise of 'why not?' and that's pretty close to random), we have free will.

"Why not?" is as far from random as you can get. "Why not" indicates that you have no reason not to do something, which means you have given it thought. That makes it deliberate, which is quite definitely the antithesis of random.

To Boozy/Slyt: I'll respond to you guys in a bit. Got to get out and do errands. So, to accept a challenge: Just quickly, cause I'm not at work

[DrT]

As I stated, it was probably my fault for not expressing my argument right, nevertheless let's get finished:
-you jumped from 'new idea are activated through random event' to 'decisions are random'. That was wrong: a decision may include an idea generated randomly, that doesn't make the whole process random.

-fractal indeed is a bad idea, thus let simply state that a decision is reached through the interaction of a large quantities of decisional loops, treating different inputs through different channels. these channels ironed through experience. To these lets add the randomly generated ones.

The conscious mind review these loops, or actually: reviews the ones that the inconscious mind deems appropriatly important for the conscious mind to care about. As an idea, hence a series of loop, gains importance, it is travelled more frequently (ie: in the mass of ideas, there's a few that you lilke the most: you discard the others, focus on these, review them more (loop more) and once a loop reached critical mass, it takes precedence over the others.
The critical mass is aquired by reviewing that loop the most.

-the 'why not' thing as not being random.... A new idea was born through that random even, since it's new you can't figure out a reason to do it, you do it.

Random electron firing: tis the background noise of the EEG.

True, but it is a presumption that has been thrashed out, and yet to be disproved, nor even effectively countered.. hence why this thread is now on page 5.

It's an empty presumption, with no argument backing it. How can you disprove empty ? It's the reason I ask Petersen to back it up, because right now it doesn't make enough sense to warrant any consideration.

[Pedersen]

There is a book by the physicist Evan Harris Walker called "The Physics of Consciousness" that deals with free will and neuroscience, how the brain makes decisions, and the nature of consciousness.

Thanks Boozy. It's now on my list of books to find/read.

Firstly, I wasn't thinking about all laws applying equally. So, there are 'laws' in place which dictate which other laws apply how strongly and where (for wants of better words). We already know this to be true - time isn't always 1 second/second - gravity affects it. Black Holes throw a real dent in the birthday parties one expects.

Actually, time is is always 1 second/second, so far as we can tell. What you are thinking of is the frame of reference phenomenon, where time will appear to pass at different rates to different observers depending on their location and speed relative to other phenomena. So, while you're right, I had to nitpick at that, primarily because it can affect other arguments you present.

Our mathematicians have 'proven' the existence of multiple dimensions, and I believe that various physicists are using those proofs to prove String Theory. So, our universe is still one great big pile of massively unknown phenomenon that we humans are gaping at like infants at a mobile... So it's not a matter of 'violating' the laws, but being in a different relation to the ones that we have a certain relationship with.

I will admit that it is possible that certain laws will affect you differently depending on other factors. For instance, the black hole thing you mentioned is not so much about gravity as it is about acceleration.

Diversion from the main topic here, and I apologize: What happens with a black hole, to the best of our understanding, is that the matter that comprises the black hole is so densely packed that not even light can escape the vicinity of the black hole. However, obviously light still exists, so there is a point past which the gravitational pull of the black hole has weakened enough that light is able to escape. This location is called the event horizon. In order for a matter to cross the event horizon, it must be moving at the speed of light.

Very closely related: The faster an object moves, the slower time passes for it relative to other objects. The closer the velocity is to the speed of light, the slower time passes for all matter moving at that velocity. Furtheremore, the closer to the speed of light, the more massive the object becomes. The more massive the object becomes, the more energy that is required to accelerate the object. This results in a minor issue: It is impossible to accelerate matter to the speed of light, since to do so would require infinite energy. However, it's possible to accelerate it to very very close.

And the point of all this? For matter at that velocity, we would perceive time moving very slowly inside of that matter, while it moves normally to us. The laws are not violated, but they do seem to affect objects differently depending on other variables.

Now returning to the regularly scheduled thread

And since you asked the question, very quickly... 'we' have a 'soul'. We aren't really the soul, cos there's lots we're cut off from, or not aware of (obviously), but it 'resides' in an area (for want of a better word) outside of time and space. It, for whatever reason, drops 'spirits' down to the various bits of the multiverse - in different times, dimensions, places - presumedly to gain XP and go up a level...(well - to learn directly instead of merely indirectly... because...well.... because... why do people go climb mountains???) These 'spirits' are a better term for 'us', and they are the 'us' that can drop bodies and experience multiple physical lifetimes worth of experiences.

This actually isn't totally out there. I've thought similar things in the past, but not in quite those terms. More like "The universe broke itself into a thousand million little pieces, each of which was sent to learn something about itself. We are the universe, still learning." So, not as far out there as you might have thought.

Why don't we remember?--SNIP--

Actually, pretty coherent for a bunch of mystic mumbo-jumbo crap

Seriously, it is a fairly coherent thought, and seems to hold well together. But, I'll be honest, I see nothing in there that requires (or even encourages) the notion of free will.

Now, Pedersen, I have to ask you a question. It's been asked before, but not quite answered. What is this 'I' that is spoken of in this thread?? The self?? Is it merely a physical construct from the workings of the brain - so the brain and mind are one and the same? Are they different fish? Does the brain have anything to do with the self at all??

Actually, I'm not quite sure. The simplest definition, and the only one I can feel 100% comfortable in saying is true, is that the "I" includes all of the physical pieces that make up a body, including the brain. It might include more, but I don't know. And I, personally, am not convinced it does.

As I stated, it was probably my fault for not expressing my argument right, nevertheless let's get finished:

Yes, let's. Since your entry into this particular debate, the single best contributions you have been able to make have required other people saying "Look, what you're describing is impossible, but just so you'll stop parroting these same ideas over and over, we'll pretend they can happen and would you please get on with it already?"

Quite frankly, I'm tired of trying to argue something logical with someone who insists on using repetition to back his position, even when he is shown (repeatedly) that what he is repeating is either logically or physically impossible. Then when the argument is dismantled line by line, he claims that I misread what he typed.

So, yes, I agree, let's get finished.

-you jumped from 'new idea are activated through random event' to 'decisions are random'. That was wrong: a decision may include an idea generated randomly, that doesn't make the whole process random.

Except for the simple fact that by your own definitions and descriptions of the process, any idea that can make it into the conscious brain can only come from these random processes. As a result, the brain ... oh hell, you know what? I really am tired of it.

Here, I'll give it to you on a silver platter. I realized this this afternoon. A method does exist whereby free will can exist, does not violate the laws of physics, and even allows for some variety of spirituality. I realized it thanks to Slyt, actually, who managed to bring souls back into this debate (not that I necessarily agree with it, but I can not prove this method false).

Here's that method:

• Souls exist.
• Souls have free will.
• Since they have that free will, they must be able to decide independently of anything in our universe. Therefore, they must exist outside of it.
• Since they exist outside of it, they must have some connection to our universe, to be able to direct our bodies to act according to their decisions.
• That connection, on the side of the universe that holds our bodies, is subject to the laws of physics.
• The souls would be unable to start an electron moving, or stop it. What they could do is control the seemingly random motion of the subatomic particles. Not stopping it or starting it, just altering the direction the particles take. Since this motion is, at this time, believed to be random, it is entirely possible that some outside force is controlling it.

There, you have it on a silver platter. Provided you believe the first two premises, the rest follow easily.

I was going to wait a few days to see if somebody else figured it out. But, as I said, I've hit my endurance level. Carrying both sides of the debate is a very draining experience.

[Slytovhand]

Hey Ped.

I'll just throw in 2 cents...1c -

is that the "I" includes all of the physical pieces that make up a body

I won't go with that... you cut off a finger, aren't you still your 'self'? (yeah, I know, asking a question isn't a form of valid argument..) Or are you implying that everytime you lose a hair, or shed some skin, or cut off a nail, you are literally losing a piece of yourself? I was thinking that when you brought up something similar in MGM (not Metro Goldwyn Mayer, btw...)


2c -

Souls have free will.

still leaves us with the original problem - just moves it out of the boundaries of our understanding...

Thanks for the physics clarification. I wasn't exampling 'violations', but the point (as you succinctly put it) "but they do seem to affect objects differently depending on other variables." My bad on the bad science

I presume I don't need to go through my argument anymore then??? Granted, I didn't say anything that either requires the notion of free will (just stating an initial proposition), though it leads on to the next argument for 'encouragement'... but, given you've basically stated it (a little differently to how I would), is there much point to continue??


ETA: 'Random' - Speaking of that... technicality - just because something doesn't have a 'purpose', doesn't mean that it doesn't have either a 'cause' or 'lacks order or predictability'... And if something does have a purpose, it would entail one of the other 3 (I'm thinking... sort of wracking brain to find counter-examples...)

[Slytovhand]

Oh - DrT..

Originally Posted by Slytovhand View Post
True, but it is a presumption that has been thrashed out, and yet to be disproved, nor even effectively countered.. hence why this thread is now on page 5.
It's an empty presumption, with no argument backing it. How can you disprove empty ? It's the reason I ask Petersen to back it up, because right now it doesn't make enough sense to warrant any consideration.

Damn - my bad!! Actually, Laws of Universe and incompatibility with Free Will was argued, backed up, and that's why we're on page 5. It's not a presumption - it's a conclusion seeking counter. Certainly, it's packed full of stuff, rather than being 'empty'.

[DrT]

Oh - DrT..
Damn - my bad!! Actually, Laws of Universe and incompatibility with Free Will was argued, backed up, and that's why we're on page 5. It's not a presumption - it's a conclusion seeking counter. Certainly, it's packed full of stuff, rather than being 'empty'.

Err, no.

It was five pages of slight disgressions, a lot of misreading, plenty of time passed on taking appart the form arguments instead of focusing on their meaning, and plenty of 'if the rules of physics come into the process, there can be no free will'

and that last statement is still unexplained. We still don't know how the rules of a game supress all your liberties inside that game.

Well, you can make the argument that since there are rules (ie: things that cannot be done) then free will can't exist (ie: some decisions will simply not fit with reality). It's the allegory (or is it metaphor) of the prison that Pedersen formulated elsewhere.
However:
- you can still make the decision of doing something unrealistic. It won't work, but you were still free to try
-saying that the presence of rules denies the existence of free will goes further: it denies the existence of freedom itself.
-the fact that freedom in the game is denied by the rules of the game only applies if you can't leave the game. can't we can leave the universe/deny the grip the lwas of physics have on us ? at will ? isn't the door to the prison open ? Is that still a prison, then ? What keeps us inside the prison, if not ourselves ? Doesn't that mean were are free to chose to stay or go ? free, you said ?

That seems a more interresting discussion than the consequences of misreading and word-jumping.

[Pedersen]

I'll just throw in 2 cents...1c - I won't go with that... you cut off a finger, aren't you still your 'self'? (yeah, I know, asking a question isn't a form of valid argument..) Or are you implying that everytime you lose a hair, or shed some skin, or cut off a nail, you are literally losing a piece of yourself? I was thinking that when you brought up something similar in MGM (not Metro Goldwyn Mayer, btw...)

Well, I'd have to go with losing a piece of yourself. It's an inconsequential piece, for the most part, but it is a piece of yourself. Scale it up a bit, and ask if you lose a piece of yourself if you lose a finger, or an arm, or an eye, etc. If so, then what's the difference between losing various bits of the body, except for the level of consequence?

2c - still leaves us with the original problem - just moves it out of the boundaries of our understanding...

It does very much do just that. I am willing to accept the idea that, in a place "outside" the universe, our physical laws would not be binding, and therefore things in that place would be able to do things we cannot do here.

Thanks for the physics clarification. I wasn't exampling 'violations', but the point (as you succinctly put it) "but they do seem to affect objects differently depending on other variables." My bad on the bad science

Nah, that's okay. You had the right idea. Black holes are just an extreme example. I just wanted to clarify things a bit there.

I presume I don't need to go through my argument anymore then??? Granted, I didn't say anything that either requires the notion of free will (just stating an initial proposition), though it leads on to the next argument for 'encouragement'... but, given you've basically stated it (a little differently to how I would), is there much point to continue??

Only if you wish. I find it interesting to learn different viewpoints on the universe. They make me think, and I do enjoy that.

ETA: 'Random' - Speaking of that... technicality - just because something doesn't have a 'purpose', doesn't mean that it doesn't have either a 'cause' or 'lacks order or predictability'... And if something does have a purpose, it would entail one of the other 3 (I'm thinking... sort of wracking brain to find counter-examples...)

Well, before you rack your brain too hard, keep in mind that was an "or" statement. If any one of those conditions is met, then the item in question is not random.

Damn - my bad!! Actually, Laws of Universe and incompatibility with Free Will was argued, backed up, and that's why we're on page 5. It's not a presumption - it's a conclusion seeking counter. Certainly, it's packed full of stuff, rather than being 'empty'.

Nah, Slyt, I'm sure you can see that it's obviously total fluff, no logic/etc. And, if not, well, we can have it pointed out to us pretty easily. Just look below:

It was five pages of slight disgressions, a lot of misreading, plenty of time passed on taking appart the form arguments instead of focusing on their meaning, and plenty of 'if the rules of physics come into the process, there can be no free will'

See, Slyt? It's all a big misreading on my part that I have failed to understand the meaning of what is being said.

DrT, you have truly amazed me. I mean, if amazement levels could be quantified and codified, such that amazement level 1 would be "wow, the sun came up again today" and amazement level 10 would be a physicist finding out that he could accelerate a 1970's era Ford Pinto to faster than light travel safely, my amazement level right now would probably still require scientific notation.

I mean, I've vivisected your arguments. I've shown the logic holes. I've said "fine, for the sake of argument, you can have this point, now please state your case" (twice!). I've even gone so far as to diagram your sentences to show you exactly what you are saying. And yet you come back and claim that I have failed to pay attention to the meaning of your arguments, and furthermore claim that I have not demonstrated my case.

Perhaps you forgot this post, that I'm quoting below?

No, I'm saying that we all have the following things in common:

• I have a body.
• In that body is a brain.
• The brain is exclusively composed of physical matter.
• All physical matter is affected by other physical matter in some way.
• The brain is responsible for all decision making processes.
• The brain, being affected by physical matter, therefore has its decision making processes affected by physical matter.
• Any idea of free will relies on the brain being able to make a choice independently of outside influence.
• The brain is unable to completely ignore physical matter (its own or other) during decision making processes. If the electrical impulses move in one direction, one decision will be made. If they move differently, a different decision will be made.
• Since the brain is incapable of acting independently from the physical matter that composes it, and since the brain is purely physical matter, and since free will requires the ability to act independently of outside influence, there is no free will.

What you have failed to show is the logical hole in that progression. Please do. I would very much like to know where it is. I would love to actually debate something, as opposed to diagramming sentences. I haven't been given that option before now.

and that last statement is still unexplained. We still don't know how the rules of a game supress all your liberties inside that game.

If you would like to use the metaphor of a game to describe it, then allow me to show you a game that has no choices. Clock Solitaire. The entire game is purely mechanical. No options exist, no branches may be taken. As such, the rules of a game suppress all liberties inside that game.

Now, that fits the criteria you supplied of "how the rules of a game suppress all your liberties inside that game" (emphasis added). Now, I know what's coming next: I took apart the form, and not the meaning. You will now demand that I explain how the laws of physics conspire to strip you of your liberties. Since you seem willing to restrict your argument to the secular, I will now do so.

Human beings have five senses: sight, smell, hearing, taste, and touch. Each of these senses functions very similarly. They are activated by specific nerves in specific portions of the body. When the nerve cells are stimulated, they respond by generating a small electrical charge, which then travels the nervous system into the brain. The brain has various processing centers which receive and act on these electrical impulses. Much processing is done by the various centers of the brain before being presented to the region of the brain that houses the conscious mind. As a noteworthy side effect, it takes approximately 0.25 seconds from the time something enters your field of perception before your conscious mind becomes aware of it.

Now, we have a very simple mechanism, easily understood: Electricity moves through the body, through the brain. Individual neurons react (or don't), and in varying degrees, to these impulses, allowing them to either pass along or suppress the impulses to other neurons.

In a purely secular argument, the brain houses the consciousness, and is the sole location of the consciousness. The conscious mind is incapable of directing the flows of eletricity within the brain (if you wish to claim it is, then please provide a citation). The end result is that the conscious mind is completely subject to the electrical flows within itself, thus removing free will.

Random motion, at this point, becomes irrelevant. It can exist or not, it does not matter. The brain, the home of the conscious, is subject entirely to it.

Is that specific enough for you?

-saying that the presence of rules denies the existence of free will goes further: it denies the existence of freedom itself.

Yes, it does. I might not like it. I might dread some of the consequences of it. But that does not change the fact that it does not exist.

-the fact that freedom in the game is denied by the rules of the game only applies if you can't leave the game. can't we can leave the universe/deny the grip the lwas of physics have on us ? at will ? isn't the door to the prison open ? Is that still a prison, then ? What keeps us inside the prison, if not ourselves ? Doesn't that mean were are free to chose to stay or go ? free, you said ?

And you accuse me of saying stuff like "You seem to believe that my inability to grow wings and fly denies the existence of free will" when you spout drivel like that? Very well, if you insist on making completely specious claims, I will allow you to do so. Nay, I will help you do so. Now how, pray tell, would one go about denying the grip of the laws of physics in this universe? Or even managing to leave it? I would very much like to know before my next heating bill arrives, please.

That seems a more interresting discussion than the consequences of misreading and word-jumping.

Honestly, I'd prefer a discussion where misreading is met with "Woops, I didn't explain myself well. Please disregard that, and use this in its place." It's okay to misread, and to misstate. But when your entire argument is shown to be logically unsound, replying with something like the above only shows an unwillingness to admit to being wrong.

We all are, on occasion. Hell, I might be wrong about this whole topic. I have yet to be shown one shred of evidence that shows me to be wrong, though. And I would really like it. I actually prefer the idea that we be free. But the evidence, more and more, is showing us not to be.

[DrT]

In a purely secular argument, the brain houses the consciousness, and is the sole location of the consciousness. The conscious mind is incapable of directing the flows of eletricity within the brain (if you wish to claim it is, then please provide a citation). The end result is that the conscious mind is completely subject to the electrical flows within itself, thus removing free will.

but isn't the conscious mind all these electrical flows ?
As far as determing which comes first, of the consciousness of action or the inconscient preparation to the action, this makes for interesting reading
http://web.gc.cuny.edu/cogsci/private/haggard-libet.pdf

Oh, and in these experiments, when the subject finishes his action, the electrical flow stops. Does that count as your 'conscious minds directs the flow of electricity'?

Yes, it does. I might not like it. I might dread some of the consequences of it. But that does not change the fact that it does not exist.

Then don't start talking about free will, but about freedom. The 'will' part entails a whole bunch of stuff that's really noise in the discussion on freedom.

However, my next point does touch on freedom, so let's

And you accuse me of saying stuff like "You seem to believe that my inability to grow wings and fly denies the existence of free will" when you spout drivel like that? Very well, if you insist on making completely specious claims, I will allow you to do so. Nay, I will help you do so. Now how, pray tell, would one go about denying the grip of the laws of physics in this universe? Or even managing to leave it? I would very much like to know before my next heating bill arrives, please.

Suicide.
That would indeed sever my ties to the physical world, wouldn't it ?

Now, is there anything stopping me from ending myself, appart from me ? An I don't mean influences (like children, love, etc) but actual physical event that will prevent me from severing my ties to the physical world ?
will these electrical flows stop me from doing it ? or the rules of physics ? Anything else but my consciousness ?

[Pedersen]

but isn't the conscious mind all these electrical flows ?
As far as determing which comes first, of the consciousness of action or the inconscient preparation to the action, this makes for interesting reading
http://web.gc.cuny.edu/cogsci/private/haggard-libet.pdf

Interesting paper for the most part, but it does not manage to draw any definitive conclusions. In fact, about all that it manages to say amounts to "I read someone else's work, thought it was interesting, did some of my own testing, and can't tell for sure if I did better or worse than him."

It's possible I've not understood all of what he said, though.

Oh, and in these experiments, when the subject finishes his action, the electrical flow stops. Does that count as your 'conscious minds directs the flow of electricity'?

So, let me see if I understand your question: The body performs an action. When that action is completed, those bits of feedback no longer need go towards the same centers of the brain, and therefore the electrical activity stops. Does that count as conscious direction of the electrical flow?

If that is your question, I'd have to say no. The conscious mind did not select to stop the direction of electrical flow. The body simply stopped sending it.

I doubt this will convince you, so let's put it another way: If the conscious mind is the one that directs the flow of electricity, then one of the thoughts that would have to occur is "Okay, time to drop the voltage to that area now." Since that thought does not occur (well, not in anybody that I've ever spoken with, I admit), this electrical flow is under the direction of something else.

Suicide.
That would indeed sever my ties to the physical world, wouldn't it ?

Let's see, if you kill yourself, do the atoms making up your body spontaneously disappear? No? Then no, you are still here. Not functioning the way you were before the suicide, but definitely still here.

So no, your ties are not severed. Good try, though.

Now, is there anything stopping me from ending myself, appart from me ? An I don't mean influences (like children, love, etc) but actual physical event that will prevent me from severing my ties to the physical world ?

Nope, not a thing. However, I have an interesting thought experiment for you. If the conscious mind is in control of the electrical flows throughout the body, and if those flows are required for life (as we understand it) to continue, then, through no more than free will, you should be able to end your life. You should not have to use anything more than the power of your mind.

Personally, I've not heard of people doing such things. Whenever an unusual death is fully investigated, there's always some physical cause. The body stopped.

Do suicides happen? Sure. The collection of electrical impulses that power the brain eventually lead to a state wherein the brain's decision making centers caused a set of actions that ended the electrical impulses in question.

That does not mean that the person chose it. It only means that things happened inside the brain to cause it. Big difference.