A challenge to show me wrong

[Willamena]

That would happen if I mixed contents of two posts, one of which was in response to a specific question. However, the use of the word 'sensual' by me was probably not appropriate.

My understanding of conscience wouldn't have it inhibited by senses, sensorium or sensuality, hence my confusion. I can see how a criminal might be held up as someone without conscience, but he's in the same boat I am --conscience not dependent upon sensuality.

 

[RubyEyes]

Most, including me, will not be aware of unconscious pulls. Further, even within those limitations, the idea that you chose is only a mental notion that you chose. There is no way to prove that you could have chosen otherwise. The subject is whether the path you followed (and later rationalised as chosen) was laid out or not? I have no reason to believe that anything operating within nature is above the natural laws.

I understand what you say, but there could be a non-physical part to nature, with its own laws. Since there is no demostration for any part, I prefer to stick with my own experience. If you see no reason for this, that's fine, everyone can have their own views how they see fit.

Because we are talking about the effects that the non-physical realm has on the physical one. In an analogy, if an invisible non-physical horn pierces my heart then the effect of this act will be observable, and if it is not observable then it is not a relevant event.

Yes, I see. But what I'm proposing is that the effect is observable, the effect is the choice. I infer from it and my subjective experience (for example, when I suddenly change my choice) that there is something else not fixed until that very moment.

An uncaused cause which generates from a non-physical plane and takes the physical form of decisions? That is fine, but you still have to fit the 'free will' in this scheme because it is certainly not an inherent attribute to what you propose.

The uncaused cause, in this context, is a result of our power of agency, and this is why the will is considered free in the scenario. You start your own causal line to, for example, go eat something right now and not two minutes later. Hunger influences it, but it's not hunger what entirely decides that this right instant you get up from the chair.

It is important to keep the mind that the causeless indeterminated events are not under control. This is an important characteristic of them and which is why they are regarded as indeterministic events. If they were under some sort of strict control then they wouldn't be indeterministic. And this is the problem with trying to create a connection between them and 'free will'. The concept of free will requires control over events to exist.

Yes, so it's a kind of compromise between both. An assumption that all conscious events are deterministic, that conscious control cannot be indeterministic, is almost begging the question, because you have to accept previously that determinism is true in all contexts.

 

[atanu]

My understanding of conscience wouldn't have it inhibited by senses, sensorium or sensuality, hence my confusion. I can see how a criminal might be held up as someone without conscience, but he's in the same boat I am --conscience not dependent upon sensuality.

I accept that I did not use accurate words. As I understand, conscience is like sun whose absence during an eclipse is only an appearance. I qualified 'sensual' in the second post. It is one's beliefs, which are said to be dependent on gunas (tendencies-qualities) of mind, that may hide or help to reveal the veiled conscience. It is said that a sattwik mind that has the lowest attachments to sense perceived objects has the clearest view of the conscience. On the other hand, the tamasic mind has most indolent attachment to objects of senses and has very dim view of conscience.

 

[atanu]

I understand what you say, but there could be a non-physical part to nature, with its own laws. Since there is no demostration for any part, I prefer to stick with my own experience. If you see no reason for this, that's fine, everyone can have their own views how they see fit.

Yes sure. Now we are nearly on the same boat.

 

[Willamena]

I accept that I did not use accurate words. As I understand, conscience is like sun whose absence during an eclipse is only an appearance. I qualified 'sensual' in the second post. It is one's beliefs, which are said to be dependent on gunas (tendencies-qualities) of mind, that may hide or help to reveal the veiled conscience. It is said that a sattwik mind that has the lowest attachments to sense perceived objects has the clearest view of the conscience. On the other hand, the tamasic mind has most indolent attachment to objects of senses and has very dim of conscience.

Thank you for explaining. I will read more about it.

 

[Koldo]

Yes, I see. But what I'm proposing is that the effect is observable, the effect is the choice. I infer from it and my subjective experience (for example, when I suddenly change my choice) that there is something else not fixed until that very moment.

You don't perceive it as fixed because you only acknowledge your choice at the moment you make it. if that is the effect, then there is a cause. That is how things work in the physical realm. If a non-physical thing were to interact with physical ones then it would be either through determinism or indeterminism as there is nothing else left in the physical realm.

The uncaused cause, in this context, is a result of our power of agency, and this is why the will is considered free in the scenario. You start your own causal line to, for example, go eat something right now and not two minutes later. Hunger influences it, but it's not hunger what entirely decides that this right instant you get up from the chair.

It is not simply hunger. It is our will as a whole that causes us to make the actions we do. There are many converging factors within our will that allow us to make rich decisions. You are not causing your own causal line when you make an action, rather you merely acknowledge your will and acting in accordance to it.

Yes, so it's a kind of compromise between both. An assumption that all conscious events are deterministic, that conscious control cannot be indeterministic, is almost begging the question, because you have to accept previously that determinism is true in all contexts.

I am not merely assuming all conscious events are deterministic, that is just the most likely situation. However, even if i were to concede that ALL events are truly indeterministic it still wouldn't help your argument, because indeterminism does not create free will.

Now, conscious control obviously can not be indeterministic. In the inderterminism, nobody can choose the outcome. If our choices were truly based on indeterminism then we would be making random actions all the day for no reason, for no cause.

And now on regard to your last sentence, i have already said that i don't need determinism to be true in all contexts to support my argument. Both determinism AND indeterminism support my position.

 

[RubyEyes]

You don't perceive it as fixed because you only acknowledge your choice at the moment you make it. if that is the effect, then there is a cause.

That could certainly be one explanation, but there's the other that it's truly because there is something which is not fixed until that moment.

That is how things work in the physical realm. If a non-physical thing were to interact with physical ones then it would be either through determinism or indeterminism as there is nothing else left in the physical realm.

You may be right about how things interact in the physical realm, but I think this could be different when it's within the non-physical or the non-physical interacting with the physical. What's the point in the non-physical if, when it interacts with the physical, it works as if it were physical?

It is not simply hunger. It is our will as a whole that causes us to make the actions we do. There are many converging factors within our will that allow us to make rich decisions. You are not causing your own causal line when you make an action, rather you merely acknowledge your will and acting in accordance to it.

I know this is your position, but 'acting in accordance' to one's will is the part that is prone to various interpretations and discussions.

I am not merely assuming all conscious events are deterministic, that is just the most likely situation. However, even if i were to concede that ALL events are truly indeterministic it still wouldn't help your argument, because indeterminism does not create free will.

Not the kind of indeterminism you know, which is physical, but other types could. If you deny this, then you're simply stating that free will is impossible no matter what (supporting my idea that determinism is an incorrigible dead-end).

Now, conscious control obviously can not be indeterministic. In the inderterminism, nobody can choose the outcome. If our choices were truly based on indeterminism then we would be making random actions all the day for no reason, for no cause.

And now on regard to your last sentence, i have already said that i don't need determinism to be true in all contexts to support my argument. Both determinism AND indeterminism support my position.

I believe you're extrapolating what you know about physical indeterminism from the quantum level and thinking that that is the only kind of indeterminism which can exist. So yes, both physical determinism and physical indeterminism may support the notion, but I'm not arguing from any of them, free will is no quantum randomness, it's a different type of indetermination, with its own laws. The subjective, non-material will, could begin a physical causal chain.

 

[Koldo]

That could certainly be one explanation, but there's the other that it's truly because there is something which is not fixed until that moment.

Probably the mind only calculates at a given point whether a given course of action is going to be taken or not anyway. It doesn't mean this non-fixed value is under anyone's control though.

You may be right about how things interact in the physical realm, but I think this could be different when it's within the non-physical or the non-physical interacting with the physical. What's the point in the non-physical if, when it interacts with the physical, it works as if it were physical?

What's the point? :areyoucra
You sound like you are trying to use the non-physical as an excuse to make 'free will' doable.

I know this is your position, but 'acting in accordance' to one's will is the part that is prone to various interpretations and discussions.

Like this one.

Not the kind of indeterminism you know, which is physical, but other types could. If you deny this, then you're simply stating that free will is impossible no matter what (supporting my idea that determinism is an incorrigible dead-end).

I believe you're extrapolating what you know about physical indeterminism from the quantum level and thinking that that is the only kind of indeterminism which can exist. So yes, both physical determinism and physical indeterminism may support the notion, but I'm not arguing from any of them, free will is no quantum randomness, it's a different type of indetermination, with its own laws. The subjective, non-material will, could begin a physical causal chain.

What other types of indeterminism could possibly exist?
Please do give me an example. Explain to me how it works objectively.
It feels like you are trying to find a branch in a quarterstaff.

 

[atanu]

Probably the mind only calculates at a given point whether a given course of action is going to be taken or not anyway. It doesn't mean this non-fixed value is under anyone's control though.

I agree. Actually, Libet's experiments have shown that the conscious mind is in fact aware of volitional decisions only after the decisions had been already formed. Mind is not a living entity. It only reflects the happenings associated with the living entity.

 

[RubyEyes]

Probably the mind only calculates at a given point whether a given course of action is going to be taken or not anyway. It doesn't mean this non-fixed value is under anyone's control though.

It doesn't imply it, but it doesn't make it necessarily impossible either, I guess.

What's the point? :areyoucra
You sound like you are trying to use the non-physical as an excuse to make 'free will' doable.

I am, but call it 'way' instead of 'excuse' . If it can't be in the physical then we have to move somewhere else.
By 'what's the point' I'm saying that the point in invoking other planes is explaning what is not directly or apparently possible in this one. If you devoid the non-physical plane of the desired properties equating it with the physical, then we'd be back to the beginning.

What other types of indeterminism could possibly exist?
Please do give me an example. Explain to me how it works objectively.
It feels like you are trying to find a branch in a quarterstaff.

I have no deep understanding on the workings of the soul. I can give you the intuitive thought that when you make a decision, even if you're determined to do X, from the non-physical plane, your soul can in the last moment change the decision with its own will (our will). A lot of the will may be determined by society, etc, like the preferences, but I think there's something unique in each person granted by his/her soul that makes it different. And maybe under the exact same physical circumstances, the soul can have a slight change that is not reflected in the environment, to 'do otherwise'. When you ask why the soul does this, I'd say that that's the indetermination, just that it's a conscious indetermination. It just 'wants it', and since wanting is the will, that will is free and is yours. On how the non-physical interacts with the physical, I have no idea. But I believe in miracles so I don't think it's impossible, the principle would be the same, and the human brain is still a mystery.

Now I have to be off several days and won't reply because I'm traveling. Thank you for the debate and for bearing with me, I'm not very good on this topic. I'll try to think about it a bit more .

 

[Koldo]

It doesn't imply it, but it doesn't make it necessarily impossible either, I guess.

That is when you have to explain objectively how it would work if it were possible.

I am, but call it 'way' instead of 'excuse' . If it can't be in the physical then we have to move somewhere else.
By 'what's the point' I'm saying that the point in invoking other planes is explaning what is not directly or apparently possible in this one. If you devoid the non-physical plane of the desired properties equating it with the physical, then we'd be back to the beginning.

The non-physical properties does not necessarily ( and most likely not ) equate to the physical plane one's. However, as i said before, if the former were to interact with the latter in a meaningful manner it would be restricted as to what happens in the physical plane.

I have no deep understanding on the workings of the soul. I can give you the intuitive thought that when you make a decision, even if you're determined to do X, from the non-physical plane, your soul can in the last moment change the decision with its own will (our will).

This is actually not a contradiction to my position.
The soul may be able to change the decision at the last moment with its own will.
The difference is that ,how i see it, the soul can not change its will.

A lot of the will may be determined by society, etc, like the preferences, but I think there's something unique in each person granted by his/her soul that makes it different.

This isn't also a contradiction to my position.
Each soul may have different characteristics that change from one person to another. It may be the case our will is really influenced by our soul, or maybe it even resides within the soul.

And maybe under the exact same physical circumstances, the soul can have a slight change that is not reflected in the environment, to 'do otherwise'. When you ask why the soul does this, I'd say that that's the indetermination, just that it's a conscious indetermination.

Conscious indetermination? Do you mean like in a conscious control over indetermination?
I have already said this is not possible.
Indetermination can not be under anyone's conscious control.

It just 'wants it', and since wanting is the will, that will is free and is yours.
On how the non-physical interacts with the physical, I have no idea. But I believe in miracles so I don't think it's impossible, the principle would be the same, and the human brain is still a mystery.

Hypothetically speaking, someone able to control matter at will could easily perform any kind of miracle. While on the other hand, the ability to 'do otherwise' has been shown to be incoherent so far.

The principle is very different in both cases.

Now I have to be off several days and won't reply because I'm traveling. Thank you for the debate and for bearing with me, I'm not very good on this topic. I'll try to think about it a bit more .

Okay, then. See you later. :angel2:

 

[idav]

I agree. Actually, Libet's experiments have shown that the conscious mind is in fact aware of volitional decisions only after the decisions had been already formed. Mind is not a living entity. It only reflects the happenings associated with the living entity.

What if we were aware or could even calculate what the future was based on a purely deterministic model. Would we be able to change the future?

 

[atanu]

What if we were aware or could even calculate what the future was based on a purely deterministic model. Would we be able to change the future?

Will a character in a movie be able to change the script? My point is that as long as one is a mere character in a script one has no control.

But your point is that one is no more a character but now is potentially a director or a script writer. In that case, as per scripture that I follow and that I agree to rationally, the old script goes on till completion, in the way a potter's wheel rotates, even after potter removes himself, as per natural laws. But the character who was bound to the script is no more bound because he has renounced the character.

In practical terms, it is said that as long as a person entertains a notion that he is the doer of acts, the effects of past and present doings will unfold for him. On renouncing the the doership, the physical aspects started earlier will go on following the natural rules. But the person is distinct from the physical.

I hope it makes sense.

 

[PolyHedral]

What if we were aware or could even calculate what the future was based on a purely deterministic model. Would we be able to change the future?

Does your model take its own answers into account? If so, no.

 

[idav]

Will a character in a movie be able to change the script? My point is that as long as one is a mere character in a script one has no control.

But your point is that one is no more a character but now is potentially a director or a script writer. In that case, as per scripture that I follow and that I agree to rationally, the old script goes on till completion, in the way a potter's wheel rotates, even after potter removes himself, as per natural laws. But the character who was bound to the script is no more bound because he has renounced the character.

In practical terms, it is said that as long as a person entertains a notion that he is the doer of acts, the effects of past and present doings will unfold for him. On renouncing the the doership, the physical aspects started earlier will go on following the natural rules. But the person is distinct from the physical.

I hope it makes sense.

I think I see what your saying. I believe that actually knowing will effect the outcome which makes us a doer in that we can determine our future as we shape it along the way.

 

[idav]

Does your model take its own answers into account? If so, no.

Being able to predict the outcomes is a bit of a problem. That is if we really knew the outcome and it wouldn't somehow backfire on us. So in the event that we knew all the possibilities maybe we are caused to choose a certain outcome but the fact would remain that multiple outcomes are possible.

 

[idav]

Also it seems very paradoxil for a known future event to be an influence for something to happen in a casual chain.

 

[atanu]

I think I see what your saying. I believe that actually knowing will effect the outcome which makes us a doer in that we can determine our future as we shape it along the way.

Also it seems very paradoxil for a known future event to be an influence for something to happen in a casual chain.

No. I think you have not yet got it.

Suppose, I am Clark Gable and I am playing a role of a thief. By forgetfulness I start thinking "I am a thief" and suffer the consequence. Now someone comes and whispers in my ear (in Clark Gable's ear) "You are not a thief. You are Clark Gable". I remember and still play the role.

Will now Clark Gable be tied to the causal deterministic chain? Only the chracater of thief that Clark plays goes through the motion.

(Kindly, do not take the metaphor beyond what it is meant for. It just illustrates a point).

 

[idav]

No. I think you have not yet got it.

Suppose, I am Clark Gable and I am playing a role of a thief. By forgetfulness I start thinking "I am a thief" and suffer the consequence. Now someone comes and whispers in my ear (in Clark Gable's ear) "You are not a thief. You are Clark Gable". I remember and still play the role.

Will now Clark Gable be tied to the causal deterministic chain? Only the chracater of thief that Clark plays goes through the motion.

(Kindly, do not take the metaphor beyond what it is meant for. It just illustrates a point).

I see, your agreeing with polyhedral. I don't quite agree though I understand the problem. This is the problem I have. If a person were oblivious to the future and just acting on pure volition then it is completely deterministic. However once a person knows the future this completely effects the outcome of this future in a way that alters the future. This is also a problem in quantum mechanics where the future is effecting the probability and ultimate destination of an electron. This isn't only a problem on the quantum level because time itself is not just linear.

Future holds key to quantum physics - USATODAY.com

 

[PolyHedral]

Being able to predict the outcomes is a bit of a problem. That is if we really knew the outcome and it wouldn't somehow backfire on us. So in the event that we knew all the possibilities maybe we are caused to choose a certain outcome but the fact would remain that multiple outcomes are possible.

If the model is completely accurate, then you can't change the future, because your attempt to change it will fulfill the model's predictions.