Free Will

[Nakosis]

If you acknowledge the nature of human beings- of animals in general- you should have no problem. These criminals are the result of their genes acting according to environmental stimuli; a lot of them have been victims themselves. They all have mental illnesses or other problems originating in their brains, which cause them to think and act as they do. These are medical, and social/psychological problems that we can cure altogether.. Our current methods have proved inefficient for thousands of years; killing and locking up criminals does not prevent recurring criminal behavior in our societies.

However I can dissociate myself from the cycle of cause and effect, to a certain degree. It takes practice to get better at it.

I can choose not to be angry, I can choose to be happy. My emotion are not caused by external events. You can say what ever circumstances led me to this were a cause. When people are angry/sad they respond to a situation in a reactionary manner. Their emotions cause their reaction. I can also control pain to a degree.

The ability to disassociate with external influences has been a part of eastern philosophy. A person can become to varying degrees successful at this.

So it seems to me it is possible for consciousness to disassociate itself from cause and effect. Consciousness can learn to not respond to external stimuli. Ultimately one would be free to chose desire or not to desire.

This may be a process that was built by cause and effect, however the process becomes itself self-causal.

I think from a Christian standpoint, God setup the scenario in which "evil" was introduced a deterministic process with the purpose of causing man to become self-determining.

Jesus taught turn the other cheek. This itself being an influence on human thinking. Part of the process for man to disassociate himself from the cycle of cause and effect. In stead of being the effect of emotion. Consciously choosing another course of action then retaliation. To choose not to be the effect of this world but to choose another course.

 

[Skwim]

Well qm has quite a history but here are a few.

Didn't see a thing in any of the bios indicating they thought "determinism is wrong," per your,

"I do think determinism is wrong and many who study quantum mechanics agree."​

 

[Skwim]

Nope.

Meaning derives from some semblance of control.

Really!!!! :cover:

Your delight is telling though. Why delight in an achievement if it is not at all an achievement.

So what kind of achievement do you preform when delighting in a piece of music? As I see it, personal achievement doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the appreciation of new found knowledge, OR in the delight of a new ♬tune.♬

Alas, you have no control over that in which you do or do not delight.

So what? I still have the emotional pleasure of delight.

Meaning is a human construct based on control.

Control of what? I don't necessarily have to have control over something in order for that something to have significance to me. Do you?

Sure Christians have a stake in will. But so too does every person.

Other than the satisfying sense of personal control it may instill in one, what are these other stakes?

 

[Skwim]

One problem with determinism is then we have to accept that the mass-murderer had no other choice except to be a mass-murder. Serial killers, rapists, child-molesters have no responsibility for their actions. They could not have done other than what they did. Punishment, judgement the concept of society enforcing consequences serves no purpose. It is not their fault.

Why feel guilty about any action since a person has no actual choice?

The fact that you can't sing on key is not falsified by your belief that you do.

Just because a truth (hard determinism in this case) may upset one's sense of right and wrong doesn't invalidate that truth. And, of course, the "problem" you cite is nothing but determinism's assault on the long established norms of justice, and having to deal with this more valid norm: people can't help doing what they do.

 

[Nakosis]

The fact that you can't sing on key is not falsified by your belief that you do.

Just because a truth (hard determinism in this case) may upset one's sense of right and wrong doesn't invalidate that truth. And, of course, the "problem" you cite is nothing but determinism's assault on the long established norms of justice, and having to deal with this more valid norm: people can't help doing what they do.

So we should no longer concern ourselves with concepts like responsibility and justice? If I go out and kill my neighbor because he ran over my cay, lets just accept the fact that his death was predetermined long before I was born and therefore there is no reason to hold me accountable for the act.

 

[idav]

Didn't see a thing in any of the bios indicating they thought "determinism is wrong," per your,

"I do think determinism is wrong and many who study quantum mechanics agree."​

The persons mentioned I think lean toward the many worlds theory(anyone correct me if i am wrong), which is deterministic in the sense that it accounts for it but cheats by supposing every possible outcome does manifest. It is also non-deterministic by the way "many" is able to happen in the first place cause every single thing is doing what it should as well as what it shouldn't be able to.

Its very hard to dig this stuff up but here is one thing which is more of what I am saying. Nobody is denying that newton is correct to a great extent.

Fred Alan Wolf: "Surprisingly, it is quantum indeterminacy that leads to deterministic choices on the normal level of perceived experience. If this indeterminacy were to vanish somehow, my will would not be done. I would have no choice, none at all."

However here is taking it even further because one should realize the implications of indetminacy at quantum levels afftects the foundation of calling a universe deterministic from the beginning.

To sum up, what I have been talking about, is whether the universe evolves in an arbitrary way, or whether it is deterministic. The classical view, put forward by Laplace, was that the future motion of particles was completely determined, if one knew their positions and speeds at one time. This view had to be modified, when Heisenberg put forward his Uncertainty Principle, which said that one could not know both the position, and the speed, accurately. However, it was still possible to predict one combination of position and speed. But even this limited predictability disappeared, when the effects of black holes were taken into account. The loss of particles and information down black holes meant that the particles that came out were random. One could calculate probabilities, but one could not make any definite predictions. Thus, the future of the universe is not completely determined by the laws of science, and its present state, as Laplace thought. God still has a few tricks up his sleeve.


Does God play Dice? - Stephen Hawking

 

[Sleeppy]

So we should no longer concern ourselves with concepts like responsibility and justice? If I go out and kill my neighbor because he ran over my cay, lets just accept the fact that his death was predetermined long before I was born and therefore there is no reason to hold me accountable for the act.

If you do it, it was predetermined. We even have you premeditating the murder, here on this forum.. If you were caught, you would be held accountable for something you did do, according to whatever laws you are bound under-- but that does not mean we shouldn't try to correct your behavior, and prevent others like you from making the same mistake. Accountability isn't always efficient.

 

[Skwim]

So we should no longer concern ourselves with concepts like responsibility and justice? If I go out and kill my neighbor because he ran over my cay, lets just accept the fact that his death was predetermined long before I was born and therefore there is no reason to hold me accountable for the act.

"Shoulds" are indeed very important, but they have to be considered in the context of reality. If you cannot help killing your neighbor then I believe this should be an overriding determinant as to your liability and accountability. Thing is, such a conclusion is no more relevant than the fact that past cause/effect determinants have also left us with the overriding impression that we do, in fact, have freewill, and that we should be accountable for the "rights" and "wrongs" we commit. As erroneous as this may be in the face of determinism, it is how we operate. Personally, for whatever the reasons may be, I can't help but go through life under the impression that I have freewill. And this in light of my recognition that there is no such thing. Fact is, something in my psyche pushes the truth of determinism out of the picture and permits the illusion of freewill to reign. I have no choice in the matter. Perhaps it's an operant that arose to preserve my mental health.

This isn't meant to be any kind of excuse, but just an acknowledgement of the way it is.

 

[Skwim]

To sum up, what I have been talking about, is whether the universe evolves in an arbitrary way, or whether it is deterministic. The classical view, put forward by Laplace, was that the future motion of particles was completely determined, if one knew their positions and speeds at one time. This view had to be modified, when Heisenberg put forward his Uncertainty Principle, which said that one could not know both the position, and the speed, accurately. However, it was still possible to predict one combination of position and speed. But even this limited predictability disappeared, when the effects of black holes were taken into account. The loss of particles and information down black holes meant that the particles that came out were random. One could calculate probabilities, but one could not make any definite predictions. Thus, the future of the universe is not completely determined by the laws of science, and its present state, as Laplace thought. God still has a few tricks up his sleeve.


Does God play Dice? - Stephen Hawking

Stephen Hawking on free will

“Do people have free will? If we have free will, where in the evolutionary tree did it develop? Do blue-green algae or bacteria have free will, or is their behavior automatic and within the realm of scientific law? Is it only multicelled organisms that have free will, or only mammals? We might think that a chimpanzee is exercising free will when it chooses to chomp on a banana, or a cat when it rips up your sofa, but what about the roundworm called Caenorhabditis elegans—a simple creature made of only 959 cells? It probably never thinks, “That was damn tasty bacteria I got to dine on back there,” yet it too has a definite preference in food and will either settle for an unattractive meal or go foraging for something better, depending on recent experience. Is that the exercise of free will?

Though we feel that we can choose what we do, our understanding of the molecular basis of biology shows that biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and therefore are as determined as the orbits of the planets. Recent experiments in neuroscience support the view that it is our physical brain, following the known laws of science, that determines our actions, and not some agency that exists outside those laws. For example, a study of patients undergoing awake brain surgery found that by electrically stimulating the appropriate regions of the brain, one could create in the patient the desire to move the hand, arm, or foot, or to move the lips and talk. It is hard to imagine how free will can operate if our behavior is determined by physical law, so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion." "
— Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design, Bantam Books, New York, 2010, p. 32
​

 

[Nakosis]

If you do it, it was predetermined. We even have you premeditating the murder, here on this forum.. If you were caught, you would be held accountable for something you did do, according to whatever laws you are bound under-- but that does not mean we shouldn't try to correct your behavior, and prevent others like you from making the same mistake. Accountability isn't always efficient.

You mean "alter" my behavior? You believe you can change my behavior to something other then what it was predetermined to be? You have to believe this or else you wouldn't try...

 

[idav]

Stephen Hawking on free will

“Do people have free will? If we have free will, where in the evolutionary tree did it develop? Do blue-green algae or bacteria have free will, or is their behavior automatic and within the realm of scientific law? Is it only multicelled organisms that have free will, or only mammals? We might think that a chimpanzee is exercising free will when it chooses to chomp on a banana, or a cat when it rips up your sofa, but what about the roundworm called Caenorhabditis elegans—a simple creature made of only 959 cells? It probably never thinks, “That was damn tasty bacteria I got to dine on back there,” yet it too has a definite preference in food and will either settle for an unattractive meal or go foraging for something better, depending on recent experience. Is that the exercise of free will?

Though we feel that we can choose what we do, our understanding of the molecular basis of biology shows that biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and therefore are as determined as the orbits of the planets. Recent experiments in neuroscience support the view that it is our physical brain, following the known laws of science, that determines our actions, and not some agency that exists outside those laws. For example, a study of patients undergoing awake brain surgery found that by electrically stimulating the appropriate regions of the brain, one could create in the patient the desire to move the hand, arm, or foot, or to move the lips and talk. It is hard to imagine how free will can operate if our behavior is determined by physical law, so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion." "
— Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design, Bantam Books, New York, 2010, p. 32
​

Interesting the implications of what was noted isnt considered when saying things are determined by the "known laws of physics". It seems like a contradiction to me. Also even the orbits are affected by spacetime, how more so the brain would be affected at the levels of electric current and frequencies coming from nuerons. Nothing I have seen of neuron experiments test for the issues I think would resolve it, even when they think they are testing for freewill. Show me the experiments that disprove free will at neuron levels.

 

[Nakosis]

"Shoulds" are indeed very important, but they have to be considered in the context of reality. If you cannot help killing your neighbor then I believe this should be an overriding determinant as to your liability and accountability. Thing is, such a conclusion is no more relevant than the fact that past cause/effect determinants have also left us with the overriding impression that we do, in fact, have freewill, and that we should be accountable for the "rights" and "wrongs" we commit. As erroneous as this may be in the face of determinism, it is how we operate. Personally, for whatever the reasons may be, I can't help but go through life under the impression that I have freewill. And this in light of my recognition that there is no such thing. Fact is, something in my psyche pushes the truth of determinism out of the picture and permits the illusion of freewill to reign. I have no choice in the matter. Perhaps it's an operant that arose to preserve my mental health.

This isn't meant to be any kind of excuse, but just an acknowledgement of the way it is.

And there is the apparentcy that must be denied in order for determinism to be true. I'm not ready yet to reject what is apparently true in order to accept a philosophical theory that is still being questioned/debated.

However I'm not saying the position is unreasonable, just there apparently remains room for argument.

 

[Nakosis]

Interesting the implications of what was noted isnt considered when saying things are determined by the "known laws of physics". It seems like a contradiction to me. Also even the orbits are affected by spacetime, how more so the brain would be affected at the levels of electric current and frequencies coming from nuerons. Nothing I have seen of neuron experiments test for the issues I think would resolve it, even when they think they are testing for freewill. Show me the experiments that disprove free will at neuron levels.

Also he uses animals as examples who's consciousness certainly hasn't developed to the extent that man's has.

However you did bring is SH as a reference...

 

[idav]

Also he uses animals as examples who's consciousness certainly hasn't developed to the extent that man's has.

However you did bring is SH as a reference...

Yeah he was asking for scientists. I am not trying to bring people up as if they are the end to all arguments. Goes to show, I brought him up where he brought up why there is indetermnism, and he brought up the same person saying there is determism. I know of no experiments really saying definitively that consciousness is deterministic. What I pointed out suggests that the beginnings of the universe are inderterministic coming from a cosmologist, which implies nothing since the beginning could have been determined, even for orbits.

 

[Thief]

You mean "alter" my behavior? You believe you can change my behavior to something other then what it was predetermined to be? You have to believe this or else you wouldn't try...

Hence God's effort in the Garden event.

 

[Skwim]

Yeah he was asking for scientists.

Only because you brought them into the picture.

"I do think determinism is wrong and many who study quantum mechanics agree."
​

I am not trying to bring people up as if they are the end to all arguments.

But you did try to make the point that those in the know,

"many who study quantum mechanics."
​

agree that

"determinism is wrong."
​

And so far everything you've presented has been for naught.

 

[Sleeppy]

You mean "alter" my behavior? You believe you can change my behavior to something other then what it was predetermined to be? You have to believe this or else you wouldn't try...

My actions are predetermined, as well. Our interactions are predetermined, according to our genetic bases (which were predetermined), and the innumerable environmental stimuli (which were predetermined) causing our reactions between each another. I can't step outside our predetermined reality and create something new. Time itself is an illusion; every possible moment already exists. So if I alter your behavior, it was predetermined. If not, it was not possible.

 

[Skwim]

My actions are predetermined, as well. Our interactions are predetermined, according to our genetic bases, and the innumerable environmental stimuli causing our reactions between each another. I can't step outside our predetermined reality and create something new. Time itself is an illusion; every possible moment already exists. So if I alter your behavior, it was predetermined. If not, it was not possible.

So, there's no such a thing as before and after; before WWII and after WWII. Its end was contemporaneous with its beginning. And, eating and pooping a Big Mac are simultaneous events.

 

[Sleeppy]

So, there's no such a thing as before and after; before WWII and after WWII. Its end was contemporaneous with its beginning. And, eating and pooping a Big Mac are simultaneous events.

'Simultaneous', and yet not simultaneous. Bizarre, from our perspective, to say the least.

"There Is No Such Thing As Time" | Popular Science

 

[Sleeppy]

I guess a good analogy would be: a movie. Every frame exists simultaneously, and it's possible to observe past, present, and future events with the right capability (like a DVD player/time machine) and methods (like ff, rw, etc/time traveling forward or backwards, maybe even stopping or slowing time)..