Choice is an illusion.

[QuickTwist]

@Feather,

You raise some good points, however, I think I have some things to add on randomness fmpov and what it means for the distinction of free-will and determinism.

I believe randomness has to exist in one form or another in this reality. I am not, however going to explain how if something cannot be explained it is random.

The question is never "if this is random", but "where along the lines of reality does randomness fall?" To me, if you want to look at this in binary terms, it is whether the random falls before a sequence of events or is the result of a sequence of events.

I have to say I am of the opinion that Randomness must always precede a sequence of events. It is then up to us to decide whether things become more structured over time, or less. There are Two main arguments here.

1.) Randomness cannot come from nothing. Something must cause a disturbance in the ebb and flow of reality to produce an outcome that has no reason. There must always be a catalyst for every event that is without reason. Without something to trigger a change, change will never happen.

2.) Randomness is the underlying cause to everything. Without a spark of something random happening, no structure or logical sequence of events can take place. There can be no order without its common denominator defying the laws of physics.

What I am concluding from the topic of randomness in this post is if you are going to believe that there is a reason for randomness, you might as well believe in the flying spaghetti monster. For randomness to come from reason goes against the very nature of the laws of physics. There must always be a reason after the fact that a situation occurred. Does randomness causing order presuppose reason? No, and it doesn't have to. Without a state of chaos to work from there can really be no reason for anything. If we think about the simple fact that our Universe is expanding at a rate not fathomable to the human species, this should be evidence enough that from randomness was born a reality. In short, God must have divided by zero if we are to believe in God.

How does this tie into free-will/determinism? It should be simple enough to see that as the universe works, so do we. From a state where time did not exist to what we now have come to know of ourselves through a ridiculous amount of time for humans to comprehend, so to is a life. The analogical principle is the exact same thing. At one point, we were without existence, then, as chance would have it, we were conceived into fruition of will indeterminant of what anything could possibly hope to predict and we were made, and inso doing we have become entities that we ourselves cannot predict and will never know the source of our existence.

 

[doncarlzone]

On that we agree and hence so i saw no need to object.

I can sympathize with your ambition to reclaim "free will" for secular, rational purposes. But why not simply call it "reason" or something equivalent? Why not at the very least make it clear that you are talking about a different notion altogether instead of trying to skew the actual discussion to fit your mold by using the rhetoric of someone clearing up a misunderstanding? The free will-ists aren't misunderstanding anything. They, knowingly or not, are pushing an agenda. The determinists opposing free will aren't misunderstanding anything either.

The concept is all about sin and blame. That's the function of it. Free will to choose god or not. Free will, therefore no science. Free will, therefore reject or ignore human nature. It's just a population control power tool and a meme virus protecting its mindless conservational interests - the antithesis of knowledge.

If you provide a means of resolving the conflict, it means that you are giving religion a means of survival, a smuggling route through discourse.

Right I see what you mean. And you may be right, perhaps it is better to leave out the concept of free will altogether for this reason - that's certainly a pragmatic argument. I am not in bed with the label 'free will' by any means. I just want the arguments that I use to make sense, and the arguments I used previously to rule out free will just don't hold up. I think a lot of these arguments are based on confused intuitions which I tried to shed a light on, hence the rhetoric with which you took issue.

Now I see only one issue with this notion of removing the idea of 'free will' altogether. Should we also remove choice, freedom and responsibility altogether from our vocabulary as well? Now I am not saying that's a logical implication, it doesn't have to be. Also, I am not talking about responsibility in a christian way - I am talking about taking the responsibility for washing the dishes for example. I think that taking the responsibility for washing the dishes is compatible with a materialistic determined universe too.

 

[QuickTwist]

Top 3 thread for me, all time.

 

[Feather]

@ QuickTwist

"I have to say I am of the opinion that Randomness must always precede a sequence of events. It is then up to us to decide whether things become more structured over time, or less. There are Two main arguments here.

1.) Randomness cannot come from nothing. Something must cause a disturbance in the ebb and flow of reality to produce an outcome that has no reason. There must always be a catalyst for every event that is without reason. Without something to trigger a change, change will never happen.

2.) Randomness is the underlying cause to everything. Without a spark of something random happening, no structure or logical sequence of events can take place. There can be no order without its common denominator defying the laws of physics."


1.) is a reasonable enough

2.) why not replace "randomness" to "evolution". Both are mystical but by subbing in evolution we can better explain how order develops.

3.) Free-will can be a "necessity" in that it increases the rate of evolution beyond every option tried at random but only profitable subsets tried at random.

 

[QuickTwist]

@ QuickTwist

3.) Free-will can be a "necessity" in that it increases the rate of evolution beyond every option tried at random but only profitable subsets tried at random.

Good point. I have a couple of scattered thoughts on this.

The necessity of free-will only precludes if you are one to believe in destiny. The reason for this is because chance plays no favorites. So if one is to say that they believe in free-will, they will then automatically gain a sense of entitlement of superiority. Those of a rational mind would not think the universe owes them anything given the virtual meaning of the word nothingness when comparing oneself to an entity whose very nature is to bring them into nothingness: the universe. The thought of dentistry necessitates a sense of self entitlement for which we as entities who are to decide things in order to better ourselves consciously. So again, we are at the same dilemma in which we started in. The question this time is: does the human mind act of its own accord? Is it simply a glorified input output system? Or is something very metaphysical, supernatural even, controlling it?

I am not going to even try a tackle those questions right now because it is essentially subjective to one's perspective so far so, that it really starts to get into areas of belief and I would not want to impose my beliefs on others.

 

[QuickTwist]

There are some people I would like to here from in this topic, if they feel they have something worthy to contribute.

@Analyzer
@Absurdity
@Nick
@Nanook (who I think I would like to hear from most)
@Cog
@420MoNkEy
@(I'd ask Jenny, but I don't think this is her thing [not to say she is incapable])
@Auburn
@Oprale

If I get two people out of these I will be thrilled, but ofc I don't want people to feel pressured to contribute.

Thanks to anyone who contributes. This is an area of much interest of mine so I want to expand my knowledge on the subject. If people would prefer to leave links or other recourses to gain an understanding of this topic that would be great as well.

 

[Rualani]

If I assume determinism then the most intriguing question this kind of thought process leads to is, "What are the consequences of the belief that I have free will".

Either way we're so far away from approximating everything that factors into a 'choice' that I just don't know.

 

[Feather]

@ QuickTwist

Religious affiliates using free-will as an ingredient in their concoctions really has hurt the validity of free-will, in that those of scientific prowl will automatically disregard it because it feels like the idea has originated out of an infected premise.

I share that uneasiness with the word or idea of free-will but at the same time, I know the method of science and the kind of bull shit that gets played and past as science. Far crazier reaches of speculation and suppositions are made that people "blindly accept" because it comes from a source they have trust in, which is probably rightfully so because science has given us computers and speed boats where as religious doctrines provided taxes and no beer before 12 on Sunday.

This method of science to me needs to be honest and consistent. To me that is the entire footing of logic is to be honest and consistent.

Randomness is just as mystical as Evolution

One path leads us to a dead end the other can lead to the explanation of phenomenon in our reality.

There are things like moths that change color or adapt too quickly for the standard rate of biological evolution. Every life form has a set number of configurations it can take simpler life forms have fewer. All those configurations if tried randomly would destroy any progress or successful modifications. A ‘sense’ or intuitive instinct needs to aim or narrow the options then a random choice can be useful to add novelty but not destroy progress or take too long.

This ‘sense’ is obvious in PSI studies. The placebo effect is used in medicine as a government policy. This ‘sense’ is durable you can find it hundreds of laboratory studies – from altering the ph of water, altering the outcome of quantum effect, remote viewing, modification of brain etc.

Not to mention this ‘sense’ of life is what we experience as true. When you free-style or create you can feel your self-using it. You can feel when it works good and you can feel when it’s distorted because you’re hung over. You can also feel the difference from “it” and “not it”. Urges from your biology are obvious all the animalistic urges are just mastibatory. When you remote view you can feel the process happen patterns ideas float into your awareness governed by your intent. The results have a “feel” of their validity, you even have an intellect that can model, simulate and go back and forth as it computes the data into a form that can be stored to memory.

Sorry that was my {Ne} taking over.

My {Ti} hunts out honesty and consistency and as far as that goes my main claim or position is just that free-will is just as mystical as many other things we accept as science.

That said I agree right or wrong free-will is mystical


@ Rualani

I also had this thought once.

A. If we really are deterministic meat robots and you “believe incorrectly in free-will” then that is AMAZING a meat robot who can’t think is thinking he is not a meat robot.

B. If you really do have free-will and are actually living and you “believe incorrectly you are a meat robot” then that is bat shit CRAZY.

:::::::::::::::::::::

Random Thought

If there is one god, why can’t there be two? If there is two why not a third?

If there is more than one none of them can be a god.

It just becomes a transient separation of life, no different than if humans make AI or a fisher to the fish or a monkey in a zoo.

 

[QuickTwist]

If I assume determinism then the most intriguing question this kind of thought process leads to is, "What are the consequences of the belief that I have free will".

Either way we're so far away from approximating everything that factors into a 'choice' that I just don't know.

We are limited by our perception, yes. our perception is not perfect therefore our actions are not perfect. Not only that, but because we are exposed to what we are exposed to means that our actions will never be perfect.

 

[Bogart]

I actually spend a lot of time thinking about this, there are a few models that freak me out. I want to join this conversation, but I'm afraid that in my ceaseless pursuit to quantify reality you guys will be irritated with how it would be required of you to learn my model, but not to change your model, unless its inconsistent with conventional wisdom (but who says conventional wisdom has to be correct?). I don't think its too far off from where most deep thinkers who base their structure off of empirical evidence, reinforced by peer reviewed and demonstrable results. As you should be able to see, this is very limiting for me.


I hope there is a decrease in entropy from this post.

 

[QuickTwist]

I actually spend a lot of time thinking about this, there are a few models that freak me out. I want to join this conversation, but I'm afraid that in my ceaseless pursuit to quantify reality you guys will be irritated with how it would be required of you to learn my model, but not to change yours, unless its incorrect with conventional wisdom (who says conventional wisdom has to be correct?). I don't think its too far off from where most deep thinkers who base their structure off of empirical evidence, reinforced by peer reviewed and demonstrable results. As you should be able to see, this is very limiting for me.

You are smart to come up with your own system sure. One thing is certain though. You must think of yourself by and large much smarter than everyone on this forum if you are to be so arrogant as to say that no one would be able to understand your model of reality. I'd say you're smart but not quite as smart as people like Yellow, who came up with their own personality test, or Cog, who came up with their own view of how an economy should be run, or Nanook who constantly give a fresh perspective to things just to name a miniscule amount of people who I think you are not smarter than that just happen to be on this forum.

 

[QuickTwist]

@ QuickTwist

Religious affiliates using free-will as an ingredient in their concoctions really has hurt the validity of free-will, in that those of scientific prowl will automatically disregard it because it feels like the idea has originated out of an infected premise.

*Snip*

This method of science to me needs to be honest and consistent. To me that is the entire footing of logic is to be honest and consistent.

Randomness is just as mystical as Evolution

One path leads us to a dead end the other can lead to the explanation of phenomenon in our reality.

Science is still just a perspective one can have of the world - we must remember that. However there is overwhelming evidence that suggests that the scientific method is true in the way that once a scientific discovery has been found, it cannot be falsified ie. proven wrong. This is where it gets tricky because a large basis that we come to know as true comes from the theoretical, like this discussion. So while logic may dictate what we say, it is still a matter of perception for our brains to make logical sense out of the arguments made.

I will agree that evolution and randomness are largely words of spectacularness and even so I see no reason why they cannot mean similar things all the while having just a bit different meanings. If I were to say the difference between the two dichotomies I would say that ofc it is basically the same principle, but one, evolution, has mostly to do with life and its progression of being while the other, random, has to do with occurrences that do not have to deal with life and that progression, but are, in a way, larger than the specific meaning that we have come to know of the term evolution.

Not to mention this ‘sense’ of life is what we experience as true. When you free-style or create you can feel your self-using it. You can feel when it works good and you can feel when it’s distorted because you’re hung over. You can also feel the difference from “it” and “not it”. Urges from your biology are obvious all the animalistic urges are just mastibatory. When you remote view you can feel the process happen patterns ideas float into your awareness governed by your intent. The results have a “feel” of their validity, you even have an intellect that can model, simulate and go back and forth as it computes the data into a form that can be stored to memory.

I believe what you are touching on -in part- is common sense. I believe this also touches on our inherent intuitively grasp of what we can reasonably believe to be true or not. All ofc is based on our perception and what we have seen in the past. For example, if you were to tell Homer that the earth is round and then went on to describe the solar system they might think you are crazy. So we can see how our perception and what we are exposed to can drastically change our outlook of what we believe to be true. Even with our intuitive grasp of things and common sense it does not mean that these things are always correct.

 

[Bogart]

You are smart to come up with your own system sure. One thing is certain though. You must think of yourself by and large much smarter than everyone on this forum if you are to be so arrogant as to say that no one would be able to understand your model of reality. I'd say you're smart but not quite as smart as people like Yellow, who came up with their own personality test, or Cog, who came up with their own view of how an economy should be run, or Nanook who constantly give a fresh perspective to things just to name a miniscule amount of people who I think you are not smarter than that just happen to be on this forum.

The greatest amount of understanding comes when we overcome the resistance that prevents us from understanding. Did you miss the post where I proclaimed my subordanancy to everyone in the forum and explained why? My claim is that EVERYONE can understand my model, especially you guys, based on my assessment. This is how I claim it can rid the world of ISIS. I was uber blown away by Yellows use of their cognitive function. I actually have envy for yellow as a result. I'm afraid i cant see how that is reflective of me feeling superior to yellow, if anything it should say i feel that Yellow is superior to me. I have not seen enough of Cogs view of economic utopia, I'm interested and would love to check it out more. I certainly don't feel superior to nanook in any way. I was impressed with his ability to solve other peoples problems, highlighted by his reference to solving a Rubik's cube (which is why I assumed he was good with people but he has the same weakness as i do). I suck at solving other peoples problems because i have to quantify the problem and i cant always quantify other peoples problems because they are illogical or an abstract manifestation (at no fault of their own). However, if the problem is quantifiable i will use my model and search for viable potentialities that will have a positive effect.

 

[QuickTwist]

@Bogart, you're free to talk about your "model" of reality here or you can start your own thread on it.

 

[Bogart]

@Bogart, you're free to talk about your "model" of reality here or you can start your own thread on it.

I will continue to talk about it and reference it though out our communications. I can not explain it out right. I can only be inspired to talk about it. Sometimes my inspiration can last for days, weeks or even months and years if its complicated enough and I'm motivated. It can get awkward for anyone who is forced to be around me like at home or work. I'm afraid I might be the guy from A Beautiful Mind sometimes. I do things like calculate the effects of the planets aligning on one side of the sun. After I did the calculation on it I felt better, but it consumed about a week of my life circa 1996 (when ever the alignment was, I didn't have internet and was at the library for hours a day). I even drew a scale model of the solar system. It was 80 feet long. It was when I realized how empty space is. It wasn't until some time later that I realized how empty matter is. I designed and built from scratch (I did buy the components like tank, the calcium reactor and the protein skimmer, ETC...) a $15,000 fish tank that was 12 feet long. However, some years later I built a 7 foot tall protein skimmer from scratch the only thing I bought was the pump, it could clean a dozen eggs out of 150 gallons of water in less than 12 hours. There was also the 15 years of research on the effects of CO2 saturation in seawater.

 

[QuickTwist]

Free will can not be objective,how something that only exist in a brain can be objective?
Going back to the tv example,how can you decide objectively? when one time you conclude the characters have free will and the other that they don't.
You can also apply this to a video of dice rolling,where at first,the dice result seem random and in the second watch unrandom.

I just saw this on a reread. You may not be able to predict what the exact number rolled will be at any given time, but with enough rolls you can predict that the roll of the dice will start to emerge a pattern.

Also, why does it matter if things are determinate in a universal sense over a personal sense? What is the difference really?

I will continue to talk about it and reference it though out our communications. I can not explain it out right. I can only be inspired to talk about it. Sometimes my inspiration can last for days, weeks or even months and years if its complicated enough and I'm motivated. It can get awkward for anyone who is forced to be around me like at home or work. I'm afraid I might be the guy from A Beautiful Mind sometimes. I do things like calculate the effects of the planets aligning on one side of the sun. After I did the calculation on it I felt better, but it consumed about a week of my life circa 1996 (when ever the alignment was, I didn't have internet and was at the library for hours a day). I even drew a scale model of the solar system. It was 80 feet long. It was when I realized how empty space is. It wasn't until some time later that I realized how empty matter is. I designed and built from scratch (I did buy the components like tank, the calcium reactor and the protein skimmer, ETC...) a $15,000 fish tank that was 12 feet long. However, some years later I built a 7 foot tall protein skimmer from scratch the only thing I bought was the pump, it could clean a dozen eggs out of 150 gallons of water in less than 12 hours. There was also the 15 years of research on the effects of CO2 saturation in seawater.

So in other words, you have no way of describing the rules that govern this model?

 

[Bogart]

So in other words, you have no way of describing the rules that govern this model?

If you hanent noticed, almost every comment i make contains a small piece of the description.

 

[Matt3737]

I am a compatibilist. I believe in both a deterministic universe and the concept of a free will. I would, however, redefine free will as the ability to imagine alternatives rather than the typical definition that is more akin or even synonymous with autonomy:

Autonomy (Ancient Greek: αὐτονομία autonomia from αὐτόνομος autonomos from αὐτο- auto- "self" and νόμος nomos, "law", hence when combined understood to mean "one who gives oneself one's own law") is a concept found in moral, political, and bioethical philosophy. Within these contexts, it is the capacity of a rational individual to make an informed, un-coerced decision.

One cannot be both informed and un-coerced. Information is coercive, but coercion does not eliminate choice or free will.

In the typical example of coercion, that of a man pointing a gun to your head, you still have the choice to comply or not, regardless of the outcome. The imagining of the alternative is sufficient for the existence of free will.

In this manner, free will is not so much the act of choosing, but the weighing of possibilities or probabilities. I think saying that choice is an illusion isn't necessarily wrong, but only partly right. It is a little more complex than that.

A common example in defence of choice is to say "here we have a fork of possible things to select from where there is a moral dilemma in as to what to do becomes problematic in that there is really no clear rational favorable outcome". But here in saying there is no advantage over selecting one option over the other how can we say there is choice? We first must presuppose that this individual has the freedom to do as they please and are not hindered from making one choice over another. All things being equal without the premise of what one knows about this situation it is impossible to determine what any given person will choose in the situation.

I think any arbitrariness supports free will rather than determinism because it implies the possibility of choice or an alternative without any determining factors.

 

[QuickTwist]

@Matt,

You make good points and its hard to really disagree with you except for one thing: the very last thing. If you were to read on in the OP you would see that I mention that there is always, always determining factors for any decision we will make, and for the times that there is none, there is biology/nature that can very well make the decision for us.

Thanks for contributing

 

[Stranger85]

On choice/ free will:

Whether there is "free will" or not depends on ones identity. Human ego always has "free will" to act according to its understanding. So if awareness is identified with ego, one has "free will". When identification to ego drops ("awakening"/ "enlightenment"), identity as a clear cut subjective entity is lost, so there is no-one left to have a "free will". After that awareness can identify to "universal will".

Every subjective entity has its own will, so if awareness has an identification to any such thing one has "free will".

From ultimate perspective individual "free will" is an illusion. Human ego (or any other subjective entity) has a finite structure and makes choices accordingly. Nothing free in that.

"free will" is a subjective phenomenon and very real from that perspective regardless if nature of the universe was ultimately deterministic.

 

[Rualani]

Free Will as a concept contains a lot of information that I agree with, assuming determinism. It's the, extra entity, outside of causation that causes the issues.

@Quick,
In this thread it's difficult to determine which concepts of Free Will is the baby in the bathwater being thrown out for the sake of acceptance of a deterministic worldview to me.

I would say that to make the most of our minds we have to spend the most time IN THEM dealing with the problems and squeezing the most out of life. The very topic we are enmeshed in is a product of that.

This experience of using our minds to deal with this is in essence what Free Will attempts to point to. Regardless of whether or not Free Will exists whichever given definition we attempt to work with, that experience is still a large part of what is being defined.

The best way for me to go about thinking about this problem is by envisioning various scenarios and fallowing the course of events.

Free Will Assumed Positive Interpretation
This person will consistently use their mind to the best of their abilities. Tons of psychological variable will play their part of course, but the persons faith in free will will let them keep moving forwards with their thoughts and problem-solving. Whatever the truth is, I MUST rely on my thoughts to the best of MY ability. This person will live their life well within their locus of control and may explore new variables for new thinking! A tiny problem will be external variable so far removed from the Free Will assumption, that they may be rejected. Depending on the variable that may have been assimilated this could be a bad or good thing. The person lives through life feeling abundantly free, and may not have to worry about regret, if this person has healthy control.

Free Will assumed: Negative Interpretation
This person assumed that they are in complete control and that their choice is uniquely theirs. Psychological variables and external variable outside the peripheral are neglected and missed as they are not seen as part of the unique decision-making process. This cuts off the persons exploration process and blinds the person to variables that could be of further use to improved decision-making. This person will steadily assimilate new variable as it's impossible not to, this process will remain stagnant and the persons thought process will remain slow and steady like a nice little house with a picket fence somewhere far away. This world can be stifling, but travel too far and Free Will assumption might be challenged. If broken, could swing into a very ugly variant of Choice is an Illusion.

Choice is an illusion: Positive Interpretation
Choice is an illusion and the person sees themselves as being nothing more than the product of a mind-boggling amount of causal variables. This person accepts this objective reality, but knows that the best course of action is to rely on the mind. As a bonus this person will have a greater vision for variable lingering just outside the peripheral and ,while in control, will have a greater chance to grasp these variables and expand their horizons. By grasping more and more of a persons world the field of control is greatly expanded and the conscious deliberation has much more information to utilize to make newer and improved choices. Only by becoming more aware of the variables scattered within the darkness of our soul and by courageously grasping into the world with everything that we are does this person steadily become more and more free.

Choice is an Illusion: Negative Interpretation.
Choice is an Illusion and this person sees themselves as nothing more than the product of a mind-boggling amount of variables. This reality is accepted and internalized as being the true state of the inner world. Instead of grasping with all the mind to control these variables as passive acceptance begins to plague the soul. Our vision is expanded by exploration, but with such a passive acceptance of our inevitable action, the person, believing themselves to be beholden to the causation of the past, ironically doesn't make use of the mind that could USE this causation to its advantage. The choices coming from this foundation can lead a dangerous path leading one to be at the mercy of the environment creating a vicious cycle of acceptance of an external causality slipping further and further from control. This person is unable to grasp at the peripheral as they can hardly grasp what is right in front. This process loops feeding more and more on psychological states that encourage passivity and helplessness. Slowly, the person becomes less and less Free.

 

[QuickTwist]

On choice/ free will:

Whether there is "free will" or not depends on ones identity. Human ego always has "free will" to act according to its understanding. So if awareness is identified with ego, one has "free will". When identification to ego drops ("awakening"/ "enlightenment"), identity as a clear cut subjective entity is lost, so there is no-one left to have a "free will". After that awareness can identify to "universal will".

Every subjective entity has its own will, so if awareness has an identification to any such thing one has "free will".

From ultimate perspective individual "free will" is an illusion. Human ego (or any other subjective entity) has a finite structure and makes choices accordingly. Nothing free in that.

"free will" is a subjective phenomenon and very real from that perspective regardless if nature of the universe was ultimately deterministic.

I do not believe that whether things are deterministic or not is reliant on perception, no. I do however get your point that how one views choice is in fact reliant on perception. Perception however, does not hold much sway when it comes to whether we have a choice or not.

Free Will as a concept contains a lot of information that I agree with, assuming determinism. It's the, extra entity, outside of causation that causes the issues.

@Quick,
In this thread it's difficult to determine which concepts of Free Will is the baby in the bathwater being thrown out for the sake of acceptance of a deterministic worldview to me.

I would say that to make the most of our minds we have to spend the most time IN THEM dealing with the problems and squeezing the most out of life. The very topic we are enmeshed in is a product of that.

This experience of using our minds to deal with this is in essence what Free Will attempts to point to. Regardless of whether or not Free Will exists whichever given definition we attempt to work with, that experience is still a large part of what is being defined.

The best way for me to go about thinking about this problem is by envisioning various scenarios and fallowing the course of events.

Free Will Assumed Positive Interpretation
This person will consistently use their mind to the best of their abilities. Tons of psychological variable will play their part of course, but the persons faith in free will will let them keep moving forwards with their thoughts and problem-solving. Whatever the truth is, I MUST rely on my thoughts to the best of MY ability. This person will live their life well within their locus of control and may explore new variables for new thinking! A tiny problem will be external variable so far removed from the Free Will assumption, that they may be rejected. Depending on the variable that may have been assimilated this could be a bad or good thing. The person lives through life feeling abundantly free, and may not have to worry about regret, if this person has healthy control.

Free Will assumed: Negative Interpretation
This person assumed that they are in complete control and that their choice is uniquely theirs. Psychological variables and external variable outside the peripheral are neglected and missed as they are not seen as part of the unique decision-making process. This cuts off the persons exploration process and blinds the person to variables that could be of further use to improved decision-making. This person will steadily assimilate new variable as it's impossible not to, this process will remain stagnant and the persons thought process will remain slow and steady like a nice little house with a picket fence somewhere far away. This world can be stifling, but travel too far and Free Will assumption might be challenged. If broken, could swing into a very ugly variant of Choice is an Illusion.

Choice is an illusion: Positive Interpretation
Choice is an illusion and the person sees themselves as being nothing more than the product of a mind-boggling amount of causal variables. This person accepts this objective reality, but knows that the best course of action is to rely on the mind. As a bonus this person will have a greater vision for variable lingering just outside the peripheral and ,while in control, will have a greater chance to grasp these variables and expand their horizons. By grasping more and more of a persons world the field of control is greatly expanded and the conscious deliberation has much more information to utilize to make newer and improved choices. Only by becoming more aware of the variables scattered within the darkness of our soul and by courageously grasping into the world with everything that we are does this person steadily become more and more free.

Choice is an Illusion: Negative Interpretation.
Choice is an Illusion and this person sees themselves as nothing more than the product of a mind-boggling amount of variables. This reality is accepted and internalized as being the true state of the inner world. Instead of grasping with all the mind to control these variables as passive acceptance begins to plague the soul. Our vision is expanded by exploration, but with such a passive acceptance of our inevitable action, the person, believing themselves to be beholden to the causation of the past, ironically doesn't make use of the mind that could USE this causation to its advantage. The choices coming from this foundation can lead a dangerous path leading one to be at the mercy of the environment creating a vicious cycle of acceptance of an external causality slipping further and further from control. This person is unable to grasp at the peripheral as they can hardly grasp what is right in front. This process loops feeding more and more on psychological states that encourage passivity and helplessness. Slowly, the person becomes less and less Free.

I don't really make this topic to tell what is good or bad. That is not my point in this, but perhaps I can appease in some way. If there is a good and/or bad in free will vs. determinism it is that the subjective interpretation for or against each argument that the importance of intellectual integrity be of foremost concern.

There has to be an answer and it has to be one or the other: either we have choice in everything, which I do not believer because it would mean having omniscience or in other words, limitless self awareness at least or we do not have control over what we do. The reason it would take limitless awareness of self and thereby omniscience to say there is a choice in everything is because when making a choice you must know why you are making such choice. While it is possible to know why you make a certain choice given the surface level of reasoning, it inherently turns into an endless string of whys for why you are doing what you are doing. Given that time is a factor in this, one would never be able to implement any kind of action because even as powerful as our brains are, we are limited in what we can compute. It would take more and more time to come up with the answer for why we are doing one thing over another. Because this would mean omniscience we would not only have this perceptual reasoning of why we do something drawing in knowledge of our surrounding world, but we would be perpetually reasoning our own self awareness.

Here is what I am seeing here. If we have a choice, we must have a choice in everything because if we were to have choice in some things but not others there is nowhere to show where that choice is limited and where it is permissible. I will try to illustrate my point with an example. Say someone has a gun to your head and tells you that he will either kill you or everyone you care about depending on if you admit to whether you have ever made a choice you were not happy with and they give you 10 seconds to answer. If you say you have never made a choice you were not happy with he will kill everyone you care about and if you say you have ever made a choice you were not happy with he will kill you. Say at this point in you life do don't want to die and you don't want people you care about to die either. If you don't answer in 10 sec then they will kill both you and everyone you care about. The question then is do you actually have a choice in the matter? You will not be happy with the outcome regardless of what happens.

 

[QuickTwist]

@ QuickTwist

Religious affiliates using free-will as an ingredient in their concoctions really has hurt the validity of free-will, in that those of scientific prowl will automatically disregard it because it feels like the idea has originated out of an infected premise.

I believe that to be thinking naively. What should it matter what is associated with the idea? All that should matter is the matter and not from where it came.

I share that uneasiness with the word or idea of free-will but at the same time, I know the method of science and the kind of bull shit that gets played and past as science. Far crazier reaches of speculation and suppositions are made that people "blindly accept" because it comes from a source they have trust in, which is probably rightfully so because science has given us computers and speed boats where as religious doctrines provided taxes and no beer before 12 on Sunday.

Science is only proven after you cannot disprove it. After it has been disproven, it is no longer science.

This method of science to me needs to be honest and consistent. To me that is the entire footing of logic is to be honest and consistent.

Randomness is just as mystical as Evolution

One path leads us to a dead end the other can lead to the explanation of phenomenon in our reality.

I don't much like the idea of getting caught up in dichotomies for dichotomies sake. I will say that as long as the idea is coherent then that is all that matters.

There are things like moths that change color or adapt too quickly for the standard rate of biological evolution. Every life form has a set number of configurations it can take simpler life forms have fewer. All those configurations if tried randomly would destroy any progress or successful modifications. A ‘sense’ or intuitive instinct needs to aim or narrow the options then a random choice can be useful to add novelty but not destroy progress or take too long.

Volatility is also something that can explain why these moths seem to change color patterns faster that what is expected and could also very well explain why people believe in free will.

This ‘sense’ is obvious in PSI studies. The placebo effect is used in medicine as a government policy. This ‘sense’ is durable you can find it hundreds of laboratory studies – from altering the ph of water, altering the outcome of quantum effect, remote viewing, modification of brain etc.

Not to mention this ‘sense’ of life is what we experience as true. When you free-style or create you can feel your self-using it. You can feel when it works good and you can feel when it’s distorted because you’re hung over. You can also feel the difference from “it” and “not it”. Urges from your biology are obvious all the animalistic urges are just mastibatory. When you remote view you can feel the process happen patterns ideas float into your awareness governed by your intent. The results have a “feel” of their validity, you even have an intellect that can model, simulate and go back and forth as it computes the data into a form that can be stored to memory.

The placebo effect can work and I'm sure it does wonders for people. I suspect that it might not be a bad treatment for cancer patients as well seeing as how your mind is powerful enough that if you were to believe that the placebo treatment of cancer is working, believing it is working may just cure the cancer, and if it doesn't, at least the patient will have peace of mind.

I agree with what you are saying and how perceived free will is in effect a placebo effect all unto itself. The interesting thing here is how did the idea of both free will and determinism come to be and which one came first?

Sorry that was my {Ne} taking over.

My {Ti} hunts out honesty and consistency and as far as that goes my main claim or position is just that free-will is just as mystical as many other things we accept as science.

That said I agree right or wrong free-will is mystical

I don't believe that there is a human alive who is immune to the placebo effect. We can hunt for honesty, scrutinize every iota of scientific discovery, but if we are to not be aware enough to challenge what cannot be disproven, we leave ourselves in the position of decay as far as advancement is concerned. Free will is mysticism since it cannot be explained and gives no anchor to test out a hypothesis even. Leaving free will unchallenged means that we will continue to think we are the most important things in the entire universe, leaving little room for exploration for that which is outside ourselves.

 

[Stranger85]

I do not believe that whether things are deterministic or not is reliant on perception, no. I do however get your point that how one views choice is in fact reliant on perception. Perception however, does not hold much sway when it comes to whether we have a choice or not.

I didn't say that whether things are deterministic or not have anything to do with perception.

What I am saying is that choices we make are based on the understanding we have of reality. It is the identification to that understanding that gives the impression of "free will". Because ultimately every choice is made according to that understanding. By identifying to that, it gives rise to a sense of "I" that makes the choices and feels that he/she has "free will".

Awareness have also ability to just perceive phenomenon without identifying to anything or creating its identity(sense of "I") out of it. And without clear cut identity there is no-one to make choices and concept "free will" is irrelevant. Choices still happen but without identifying to that entity that makes them impression of "free will" disappears.

So to me "free will" is purely subjective experience and its existence depends on ones identity. Deterministic universe or not, doesn't matter.

 

[QuickTwist]

I didn't say that whether things are deterministic or not have anything to do with perception.

What I am saying is that choices we make are based on the understanding we have of reality. It is the identification to that understanding that gives the impression of "free will". Because ultimately every choice is made according to that understanding. By identifying to that, it gives rise to a sense of "I" that makes the choices and feels that he/she has "free will".

Awareness have also ability to just perceive phenomenon without identifying to anything or creating its identity(sense of "I") out of it. And without clear cut identity there is no-one to make choices and concept "free will" is irrelevant. Choices still happen but without identifying to that entity that makes them impression of "free will" disappears.

So to me "free will" is purely subjective experience and its existence depends on ones identity. Deterministic universe or not, doesn't matter.

Ok, thanks for clarifying, I think we are more or less on the same page now.

I do have a question for you though: do you think the more awareness we have the less it appears, or in other words, the more conscious we are the more "free will" appears to be an illusion to us? If I am to admit, It appears counter-intuitive to those who believe in free will because I presume they think the more conscious we are the greater the choices we have. In other words, where less sapient creatures have little choice in what they do, higher consciousness, more awareness brings more choice. I ask because I am of the opinion that what level of consciousness we have, how aware we are, it doesn't matter and there is no choice that we actually have and things will play out as an elaborate rube goldberg machine regardless of our awareness.

 

[Stranger85]

Ok, thanks for clarifying, I think we are more or less on the same page now.

I do have a question for you though: do you think the more awareness we have the less it appears, or in other words, the more conscious we are the more "free will" appears to be an illusion to us? If I am to admit, It appears counter-intuitive to those who believe in free will because I presume they think the more conscious we are the greater the choices we have. In other words, where less sapient creatures have little choice in what they do, higher consciousness, more awareness brings more choice. I ask because I am of the opinion that what level of consciousness we have, how aware we are, it doesn't matter and there is no choice that we actually have and things will play out as an elaborate rube goldberg machine regardless of our awareness.

Yes I would say the more aware we come, the more life just flows naturally. Once we have fully cleared our conditioning, awareness is grounded in the present moment and actions are performed spontaneously. Then there is really no choice to be made.

Then life is like a flower's: It expresses its full potential by blooming beautifully, without having any idea of what it would be like beforehand. There is really no choice or "free will", instead there is life freely expressing itself. Like a flower discovers its full potential by blooming, we discover our full potential by living and spontaneously expressing ourselves, not by trying to figure it out by using our minds and trying to control our lifes that way.

I would say that by strongly identifying in our ego it kind of stops our growth in certain aspects. We think we understand ourselves/ reality and by doing so we radically limit our options and create boundaries for what is possible for us. Human mind really has no capability to understand itself/ its potential, so best thing mind can do is to analyse itself and see its own conditioning. And by seeing its own conditioning and believe-systems it can let those go and go beyond them.

Mind is like an abstract reality most of us are stuck in, while life has so much more to offer than that. Ironically of course mind has no capability to see outside of itself

And finally to your question: more aware we get, more options is available to us, but at the same time sense of choice/ "free will" diminishes. It sounds paradoxical but that's how I see it.

 

[Silent Sage]

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2013/07/you-probably-have-no-free-will-but-dont.html?m=1

 

[QuickTwist]

Yes I would say the more aware we come, the more life just flows naturally. Once we have fully cleared our conditioning, awareness is grounded in the present moment and actions are performed spontaneously. Then there is really no choice to be made.

Then life is like a flower's: It expresses its full potential by blooming beautifully, without having any idea of what it would be like beforehand. There is really no choice or "free will", instead there is life freely expressing itself. Like a flower discovers its full potential by blooming, we discover our full potential by living and spontaneously expressing ourselves, not by trying to figure it out by using our minds and trying to control our lifes that way.

I would say that by strongly identifying in our ego it kind of stops our growth in certain aspects. We think we understand ourselves/ reality and by doing so we radically limit our options and create boundaries for what is possible for us. Human mind really has no capability to understand itself/ its potential, so best thing mind can do is to analyse itself and see its own conditioning. And by seeing its own conditioning and believe-systems it can let those go and go beyond them.

Mind is like an abstract reality most of us are stuck in, while life has so much more to offer than that. Ironically of course mind has no capability to see outside of itself

And finally to your question: more aware we get, more options is available to us, but at the same time sense of choice/ "free will" diminishes. It sounds paradoxical but that's how I see it.

That is a perspective I have not heard before, much thanks for showing me something new. Welcome to the forum btw, hope you stick around.

 

[Stranger85]

That is a perspective I have not heard before, much thanks for showing me something new. Welcome to the forum btw, hope you stick around.

Thanks. I'm not very active on forums, but I'm happy to share my view on topics that I find interesting.

 

[QuickTwist]

Thanks. I'm not very active on forums, but I'm happy to share my view on topics that I find interesting.

How did you find this forum? Do you identify as INTP? What made you want to post in this thread in particular?

 

[Stranger85]

How did you find this forum? Do you identify as INTP? What made you want to post in this thread in particular?

Yes I'm very much INTP, a hardcore one I found this forum after my friend introduced me to MBTI a couple of years back. First I learned everything about MBTI and it became clear that I was an INTP. Then I searched everything I could find about INTP and found this forum among many other sites.

Why I posted to this topic is because I have experimental clarity about the subject. Here is how:

I have spent lot of years mainly figuring out what myself and this reality is all about. I've questioned everything I thought I knew about myself and reality. By doing so I constantly became more and more clear about my own conditioning and believe-systems. I saw that every believe I had was just that: a believe that I had taken for granted but that had actually nothing to do with the truth. In fact I've come to see that every believe I had was like a filter in front of truth. Truth isn't something mind can grasp, it's actually the very opposite, everything mind thinks it understands actually takes it that much further from the truth.

So I was questioning everything about reality and saw that eventually even the concept of material universe was just a hypothesis. All we can know for certain is our experience and phenomenon it contains. Everything outside our experience is hypothesis, even the concrete nature of universe.

But even more than that I figured out my own ego and believe systems I had about myself as a person. That seemed more relevant at the time. I was always puzzled by the idea that my past life dictates who I am. That would mean that if I were to born in completely different circumstances I would became a completely different person. I could never buy that, I felt that essentially I should be the same regardless of the circumstances. Difference is only in the accumulated believes and conditioning and I thought if I could get past those I would find my true core being.

So I continued to go deeper into myself and then in one ordinary day when I was sitting in a car and figuring these things as usual something happened. I suddenly felt total freedom, my issues with self esteem and self-confidence were suddenly gone, it felt instantly like there is no going back. It wasn't like I got suddenly perfect self-esteem and confidence, but experimentally those two words lost their meaning completely. All the subconscious stress about how I have to perform in life etc. were gone instantly, I felt I was free from all the concepts. I see the reason for that to happen was that my mind didn't anymore identify with any of those thoughts that made me a person of certain kind and that also ultimately made me uncertain about myself. My self esteem and feeling about myself was gradually getting better while in the middle of this process but that milestone was something I didn't anticipate.

And what does this story of my life have to do with free will? It is because how I experience it has changed from what it used to be. Before when I fully identified with my past and thought I knew what kind of person I am based on that, I had a sense of "free will" because I identified with the conditioning from which basis the choices are made. I identified myself as the maker of those choices. That event somewhat changed my identity from doer to the witness, or to be clearer it kind of contains both aspects simultaneously now. So in my experience "I" don't have that identity as a clear cut entity that makes the choices anymore. I am more anchored in the present moment were there is no choices to be made, nor there is a maker of those choices. Things just flow naturally and events follow each other. Of course there still seems to be this person who "chooses" to write this post, but it is like in the flower example: does flower choose to bloom or is it just the flow of life that happens naturally?

 

[Teax]

To put my own epistemological twist on the OP:

Let's take the "strong" definition of free-will, which is incompatible with determinism. Given a choice to decide yes/no, and having decided yes, how can you know that the choice was made by free will?

I agree that your decision is strongly influenced by past. The decision however is not an exact reproduction of a past lesson or past experience. People process information. The result of the processing obviously was "yes". The only question is, do people process information deterministically?

Determinism = was it impossible to choose "no"? But all we have is the memory of the event that already happened. We can not turn back time to experiment with what's possible. The question can not be answered.

It is impossible to repeat the experiment in the future under the same exact conditions. Because future selves are always influenced by the past. Plus the processing is highly unstable, i.e. small changes in unpredictable places can turn a person's decision from "yes" to "no". So there is no way to tell whether some free-will played a role in a second experiment, by comparing it to the first.

Analogy:

Spoiler

Similarly how a sufficiently complex random number generator can not be determined whether it is a deterministic random number generator unless you know exactly beforehand how it works. Or have the ability to reset it/turn back time.

Weaker definitions of free will are useless here, because:

Spoiler

Weak-free-will can be defined in accordance to compatibilism. Weak-free-will choices can then be observed within a deterministic universe. Weak-free-will will be indistinguishable to the decider's point of view from strong-free-will. But this does not say anything about how likely it is that the universe is deterministic to begin with, quite useless.

So while the past can influence your decision in some major way, the question about whether free-will influences your decision in some minor way, is unknowable. (so is the question whether choice is an illusion)

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Because we can not predict the future we have free will,if I would know exactly what will happen that mean I am just a thing to goes on.

right,

so an omnipotent omniscient creator cannot have freewill

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

I have spent lot of years mainly figuring out what myself and this reality is all about. I've questioned everything I thought I knew about myself and reality. By doing so I constantly became more and more clear about my own conditioning and believe-systems. I saw that every believe I had was just that: a believe that I had taken for granted but that had actually nothing to do with the truth. In fact I've come to see that every believe I had was like a filter in front of truth. Truth isn't something mind can grasp, it's actually the very opposite, everything mind thinks it understands actually takes it that much further from the truth.

So I was questioning everything about reality and saw that eventually even the concept of material universe was just a hypothesis. All we can know for certain is our experience and phenomenon it contains. Everything outside our experience is hypothesis, even the concrete nature of universe.

But even more than that I figured out my own ego and believe systems I had about myself as a person. That seemed more relevant at the time. I was always puzzled by the idea that my past life dictates who I am. That would mean that if I were to born in completely different circumstances I would became a completely different person. I could never buy that, I felt that essentially I should be the same regardless of the circumstances. Difference is only in the accumulated believes and conditioning and I thought if I could get past those I would find my true core being.

So I continued to go deeper into myself and then in one ordinary day when I was sitting in a car and figuring these things as usual something happened. I suddenly felt total freedom, my issues with self esteem and self-confidence were suddenly gone, it felt instantly like there is no going back. It wasn't like I got suddenly perfect self-esteem and confidence, but experimentally those two words lost their meaning completely. All the subconscious stress about how I have to perform in life etc. were gone instantly, I felt I was free from all the concepts. I see the reason for that to happen was that my mind didn't anymore identify with any of those thoughts that made me a person of certain kind and that also ultimately made me uncertain about myself. My self esteem and feeling about myself was gradually getting better while in the middle of this process but that milestone was something I didn't anticipate.

And what does this story of my life have to do with free will? It is because how I experience it has changed from what it used to be. Before when I fully identified with my past and thought I knew what kind of person I am based on that, I had a sense of "free will" because I identified with the conditioning from which basis the choices are made. I identified myself as the maker of those choices. That event somewhat changed my identity from doer to the witness, or to be clearer it kind of contains both aspects simultaneously now. So in my experience "I" don't have that identity as a clear cut entity that makes the choices anymore. I am more anchored in the present moment were there is no choices to be made, nor there is a maker of those choices. Things just flow naturally and events follow each other. Of course there still seems to be this person who "chooses" to write this post, but it is like in the flower example: does flower choose to bloom or is it just the flow of life that happens naturally?

bingo

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

So there´s this crazy thesis that says that our conscious side of the self is always completely determined by the negative frame, by the ghosts (because these ghosts are like a distorted window to the fatual reality, subject´s desire to access to absolute knowledge on the other side is what actually drives the conscious life).

the apophatic phaneron

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]