Belief in free will is equivalent to believing in Santa Claus

a reply to: Willtell

That's the paradox. Not having free will gives us free will to not have it. So there is free will and there isn't. Depends what you mean by free will. I try to make the distinction between the two but most do not understand.

a reply to: Andy1144

Qualia

First published Wed Aug 20, 1997; substantive revision Thu Aug 20, 2015
Feelings and experiences vary widely. For example, I run my fingers over sandpaper, smell a skunk, feel a sharp pain in my finger, seem to see bright purple, become extremely angry. In each of these cases, I am the subject of a mental state with a very distinctive subjective character. There is something it is like for me to undergo each state, some phenomenology that it has. Philosophers often use the term ‘qualia’ (singular ‘quale’) to refer to the introspectively accessible, phenomenal aspects of our mental lives. In this broad sense of the term, it is difficult to deny that there are qualia. Disagreement typically centers on which mental states have qualia, whether qualia are intrinsic qualities of their bearers, and how qualia relate to the physical world both inside and outside the head. The status of qualia is hotly debated in philosophy largely because it is central to a proper understanding of the nature of consciousness. Qualia are at the very heart of the mind-body problem.

plato.stanford.edu...

A point would be that Consciousness cannot be identified otherwise to how it is interactive with reality and even outside of human awareness or knowledge.

I mean that after a downer heart transplant a person develops an urge for food they never ate before but the donor did ?

Perhaps the recipient was a lifetime Vegetarian and after the transplant develops a craving for a medium rare Porterhouse.

That is suspect to consider that consciousness is an altogether experience that could effectively transcend human comprehension of what we really are.

The conclusion that organs can have this effect is relevant to this discussion.

a reply to: Kashai

A point would be that Consciousness cannot be identified otherwise to how it is interactive with reality and even outside of human awareness or knowledge. I mean that after a downer heart transplant a person develops an urge for food they never ate before but the downer did ? That is suspect to consider that consciousness is an altogether experience that could effectively transcend human comprehension of what we really are.

It's such an interesting thing that I've been contemplating for years. It is possible it is something that gives existence to the universe itself. This includes surviving death. Especially when you consider OBE's and NDE's. Although far fetched, I feel it is good for scientists to be open to this. One of the few scientist that talks a lot about this as far as I know is Stuart Hameroff. www.youtube.com... But I still think it's more of a philosophical question then a scientific one.

a reply to: Andy1144


I would argue that the human condition translate from its matter form to its wave state. Therefore consciousness is an expression of everything we are but also from a condition alternative to the matter form.

Offered as an inherent duality in observation that is not actually parsed in relation to modeling in retrospect to some concrete relationship, inherent to the common/conservative perspective.

a reply to: Andy1144

The same could be said about hope but apparently that springs eternal.

Freewill or predestination, the notions are just so diametrically apposed.

And also quite human constructs which in the grand scheme of things means not exactly a lot.

a reply to: andy06shake


One way of looking at it is that we are individually Quantum Cogs.

originally posted by: Andy1144
a reply to: jonnywhite

Because if cause and effect rule above all else, our present decisions are mostly the combined sum of all prior events in history. And how mcuh do we control all events in history? Very little.

The type of free will you're talking about is completely different to the one that I'm talking about. I am talking about absolute free will, you are talking about the desire to make certain choices.

Ok, are you a compatibilist or a incompatibilist? Here:
en.wikipedia.org - Incompatibilism...
en.wikipedia.org - Compatibilism...

In the past, I thought of myself as someone who believed free will is a nifty illusion. I believed while the universe isn't determinsitc, it's still the overriding rule of nature. I felt even though there's not one single course the future can take, it's still deterministic enough that our free will is mostly not free. Experiencing it as being free is what makes it nifty.

So I imagine my mind as being like a very complicated pool table--impossible to fully understand it. Since it's impossible to understand fully, prediction can't be certain. Thus my every action is probabilistic. I can however make a educated projection, given what's knowable. So while I can't say my actions are predetermined, I might say they're probabilistically predetermined. There's a chance what's occurred before--some of it outside my control--will bear on the choices I make now. This means the external factors do play a significant role in my decisions, meaning freedom is relative.

I also agree most or all our decisions are unconscious. And yet regardless where decisions are being made, the above still applies.

a reply to: jonnywhite


Dialectics does not in necessity define consciousness.

a reply to: Andy1144

I just lifted my left leg slightly. Could have lifted my right, or no leg lift at all, or lifted a bit higher, but I couldn't imagine any impulse that would drive me to take that specific action, other than choosing to. It had no apparent cause or consequence any different from any of my other movement or non-movement choices at the moment.

So where do we draw the line?

I do believe there is a full spectrum though. Some choices can be made entirely freely - others, weighing possibilities/probabilities. In those, we don't necessarily make the "best" choice, but we do analyze them - consciously or subconsciously. Other choices are practically no choice at all - you can be very much "compelled" to certain choices, based on circumstances and brain chemistry.

Like most things, the answer isn't binary. It's done degree of both, on a variable spectrum.

a reply to: Andy1144

I guess this clears it up for me - we need to start with a blank mind in order to think we have "free will"

www.science20.com...

So the illusion stems from the fact that we believe our choices are somehow rational and consciously derived. Should I eat or not? What should I eat? Yet, we are bounded by both the physical reality of our existence and the logical reality of our brains [mind].

We cannot venture outside of that domain and declare ourselves to be free of that existence. I can no more will myself to stop breathing, than I can to will myself to ignore the information in my mind. Yet, this is precisely what is required if one is to claim access to "free will". The point is quite simple.Unless we can divorce ourselves from our minds, then any claim of "free will" is nothing more than the rationalization of that same mind that we somehow possess it. It is simply a circular argument.

As a result, we cannot claim to be "free" of the very same organ and process that is making the claim of freedom. Everything we do originates in our brain, including the notion that somehow we can behave independently of that same brain. To suggest otherwise would require some independent "seat of power", a homonculus [or "little man"] that is capable of overriding the decisions originating in our brains. It is an illusion.

a reply to: Andy1144

There have been perplexing reports of organ transplant receivers claiming that they seem to have inherited the memory, experiences and emotions of their deceased donors, and which are causing quirky changes in their personality

I think this is pretty fascinating. I think it gives us a clue at how organs can affect the brain. But still it doesn't take us any bit closer to concluding where consciousness is located. It's truly a perplexing phenomenon.

The organ transplant quandary is suggesting that we dont have free will - why cant you see that rather than suggest the location of consciousness? I

I find it rather arrogant of you to be so certain of something you possibly couldn't know about.

You think that YOU the little human with your pathetic little perspective have enough information to be so sure about a universal question like this?

So, your argument is basically based on determinism I take it?

I hear quantum dickery has a big problem with that.

Do you think someone else other than you scratches your butt or wrote your post? You make choices and you have free will to choose those choices unless you are a child and dont feel you have any choice... it um what all that cry for help I have no control in my life cutting or starving oneself to have some semblance of control people do... call it a coping mechanism to gain idependence of some choice or freewill... but it is what it is.

If therre is not freewill then one is either controlled or compelled beyond their own control... so maybe if you feel you do not have any choice? Might wanna personally look into that.

Not one gives you a right to remain silent but since you can excercise that will and there is no control over you choosing that? We will just call it a right and act like there was some gift of it to you...

see how that works?

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Posting so I can read this later when I am actually awake. I have never understood the idea of no free will. I think we choose in every moment and a new timeline of possibilities opens up

a reply to: jonnywhite

My whole point is that it doesn't matter whether the universe in in deterministic or not. Either way, the ultimate rule is that in order for an effect to occur, something must influence it. It could be a physical influence, quantum, both or even something more mysterious, a choice can never be made free from any influence whatsoever.

a reply to: dogstar23

I do believe there is a full spectrum though. Some choices can be made entirely freely - others, weighing possibilities/probabilities. In those, we don't necessarily make the "best" choice, but we do analyze them - consciously or subconsciously. Other choices are practically no choice at all - you can be very much "compelled" to certain choices, based on circumstances and brain chemistry.

Again you just gave the definition of the other free will I stated. It's a completely different concept from absolute free will. And as always I agree with almost every single reply on my post including yours, but you are all talking about another definition of free will. And again, I agree with everything you stated and most other people stated, but they are just different definitions.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

The organ transplant quandary is suggesting that we dont have free will - why cant you see that rather than suggest the location of consciousness? I

Read the reply more carefully, the question was about consciousness not free will.

originally posted by: DeadMoonJester
I find it rather arrogant of you to be so certain of something you possibly couldn't know about.

You think that YOU the little human with your pathetic little perspective have enough information to be so sure about a universal question like this?

So, your argument is basically based on determinism I take it?

I hear quantum dickery has a big problem with that.

You can find it whatever you want. Although it is obvious we can't know everything, there are some things we can know for certainty. The fact that I am conscious, the fact that I cannot be conscious of being unconscious. You can agree with these things too, is it arrogant to conclude these facts without a shadow of doubt?

I am not making any claims about whether the universe is deterministic or not, but whether our will can be free from absolutely anything, which is impossible.

Stop changing my definition of free will and then use that definition to disprove mine. There are more then one definitions of free will.

a reply to: Kashai

Or Boltzmann Brains.

en.wikipedia.org...

- If a thought popes up in Your mind suddenly, is that by free will?

Not really, because non of us have a Choice in the matter, and it came without Your consent. Non of us can stop a thought from happening.

- Do we have the free will to think about anything we want? No, we dont. You can not think about Things that you have not acquired knowledge about exsternaly.

- Can we do what ever we want? No, we can not. There are physical boundaries to what each one of us can do. Wanting to do is not the ame as being capable or able to.

There are so many Things that prevent us from having absolute free will. First of all, Our first limitation is Our physical body. It has needs that you have to maintain. no mater what Your mind wants.