Is free will really an illusion?

[viole]

They exist externally. What the causes, if any, were I do not know, nor do I think I can know. How I perceive my reality is based on physical perceptions. By the time I'm aware of them the events which seem to be happening in real time are already over and what I perceive are the results, not the motivations.

So, my will, or motivation, to kick that ball, existed eternally?

Ciao

- viole

 

[sandy whitelinger]

So, my will, or motivation, to kick that ball, existed eternally?

Ciao

- viole

Probably not. But I think the wills motivation is the spirit which does exist externally.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

So, my will, or motivation, to kick that ball, existed eternally?

Ciao

- viole

What motivates a thought?

 

[Skwim]

It's neither "my" definition nor is this exactly accurate regardless (although I believe that you are right in that this aspect of quantum theory DOESN'T give us free will, or at least shouldn't).

By "your 'choice' " I was referring to the choosing you established in your phrase "that we chose to examine the system in . . . ." rather than a choosing ("choice") unrelated to the examination of the system.

Rather, that it is ONLY free choice that can give us quantum mechanics (and extensions thereof).

I would ask why, but I don't want to take us off track here. QM doesn't depend on free choice---choice being the supposed act of a conscious agent.

There is no reality if we cannot determine the manner in which we decide or choose to examine reality.

You mean if everyone on earth died there would be no reality? Sorry but I don't buy your necessary reality.

If there is a cause, then by your definition it can't be "utter randomness".

Right, but in the collapse of the superposition, which will have a cause, there is no cause that determines its end state. Hence utter randomness. The cause of collapse and what it collapses to are two different things.

There is always and everywhere (regardless of interpretation) a cause, and never is any effect a "total lack of causation". This is contrary to the entirety of physics and renders physics impossible.

So it would seem; however, the consequence of the superposition collapse says otherwise.

And as I understand the resultant state of a quantum collapse, it has no cause.

If this were true, then nothing we could even in principle do would cause quantum collapse.

Why?

Because we've taken the subject of the OP off the topic long enough, consider my"why" here rhetorical. This will be my last word on QM randomness.
______________________________________________________________

Ok, you didn't fall for that one. So, are not the terms free will and free thought oxymorons?

No, because "will" and "thought" don't carry the same kind of meaning as "free."

Now, can randomness cause a thought?

No. All thoughts have causes.

 

[Nous]

Still no one has provided any explanation as to how I was able to so accurately "predict" when and what I would post:

2:47 p.m. Sunday:

I do predict that within less than 10 minutes but more than 2 minutes of posting this message, I will (certeris paribus) post another message on this thread that will contain nothing but the Czech words that translate to “free will” using this translator: http://imtranslator.net/translation/english/to-czech/translation/

And, even more particularly, I predict that I will write those Czech words in deep purple font (a color I've never before used to post a message here or anywhere else).

2:50 p.m. Sunday:

svobodná vůle

The fact is that the only explanation is that the content and timing of those posts were the product of my own willful acts.

 

[Skwim]

Still no one has provided any explanation as to how I was able to so accurately "predict" when and what I would post:

2:47 p.m. Sunday:

2:50 p.m. Sunday:


The fact is that the only explanation is that the content and timing of those posts were the product of my own willful acts.

Truthfully, I don't think anyone cared.

 

[Nous]

Truthfully, I don't think anyone cared.

Obviously it bothers you.

 

[Skwim]

Obviously it bothers you.

Then your "obviously" machinery needs oiling. I suggest one quart of Valvoline 5W-30 before bed time.


.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

+

No. All thoughts have causes.

Maybe you have already said but what is the cause of thoughts?

 

[Willamena]

+
Maybe you have already said but what is the cause of thoughts?

For some, thought is foundational.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Thought depends upon underlying potential for ideas, such as undiscovered ideas. Suppose that there were a shape you hadn't thought of. Might you think of it? Yes, you might. Now suppose you have thought of every shape. Can you think of another shape? No, because you have thought of them all. They do not spring from thought but are merely discovered in thought. You cannot think of something if there is no potential for it to be thought of, though you might not be able to think of everything that has the potential. In that case you might not, but someone else might. Then the idea you wanted to think of but couldn't is revealed to someone else, showing the potential for thought existed without your help. It happens all the time. The potential for the idea exists before it becomes an idea in someone's mind, not after. Therefore thought depends upon the underlying potential for ideas all of which exist without being thought of.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Isn't the freedom to choose one element of free will?
I think a LARGE and IMPORTANT element of free will.

It certainly is. I think our choices are often limited by our personal circumstances, and also by our conditioning and personality.

 

[Shad]

I have a question regarding this. Go ahead and tell me how I am wrong on it if I really am wrong. I personally don't think free will is an illusion because if you were to look at an unconscious organism such as a plant, then its acts are fixed. They are fixed towards survival. For example, the plant takes in sunlight, absorbs water, and all other processes of the plant are never random and are never against its own survival. They are fixed towards the survival of the plant.

Determinism is not just about instincts but also environment, situation, knowledge, experience, etc. These are all factors with determinism

So the same thing should hold true for the brain. If our acts and choices are predetermined, then they too should be fixed towards our survival and towards the survival (helping) of others as well. But I could choose to mindlessly perform a bunch of random acts right now such as frailing my arms up in the air. As a matter of fact, I could choose right now to perform acts that go against my own survival and the survival of others.

See above.

For a brain to perform such acts would imply that the brain is malfunctioning just as how I could also say that the plant performing random acts and acts against its own survival is malfunctioning as well. But the brain is not malfunctioning. It might of very well been my awareness right now of such acts that lead my brain into performing them. But still, the question remains. Why would the brain even perform such acts in the first place?

It does not need to be malfunction but is influenced by what I said above. Limited data can led to an incorrect action but this does not mean it is malfunctioning. You seem to be isolating our social aspect as if it is not part of the brain at all but actually is. So acts which help others can result in survive of individual and/within the group

It shouldn't. So the very fact that I did perform them implies that free will exists and is not an illusion.

You have done nothing to support your conclusion. All the influences above can easily be used to show you never acted with free willing but followed the influences I stated above.

 

[Skwim]

+
Maybe you have already said but what is the cause of thoughts?

Well, that's pretty much up for grabs. Most obviously, a particular thought is caused by another thought, or something that happens external to ones self. Whatever the case, a thought is determined by some preceding factor. It's a cause -> effect process and result.


.

 

[paarsurrey]

Is free will really an illusion?

We can have free will within the limits fixed by G-d.
Regards

 

[ryanam]

Sam Harris has a lot to say about free will (some of them are worth a watch) but he raises some interesting points. When I think about free will, I think about the process of a thought. An idea, the compelling urge to do... something. In order for us to be the true 'authors' of our actions, whatever they might be, we would be required to know what we were thinking before we thought it. I don't know the exact structure of my next sentence any more than you do. Does that mean that we're not responsible for our actions? No... obviously we have some level of control before instinct kicks in. It's something I had to think about for a while... we the things I'm thinking are actually coming from and how completely powerless I am to either stop or change them.

That whole concept brings us to another interesting point. If we think of... say... a serial killer. When he's caught, he's probably going to spend the rest of his natural life in jail. Rightly so, morality would dictate. Now... if we fully understood the neurophysiology of any murderer or serial killer's brain, if we could somehow see how the genome combined with entanglement with other people, events and experiences helped sculpt the micro-structure in their brain so that it was guaranteed to produce violent states of mind ... I'd submit that it could be considered as exculpatory as finding a personality-changing tumour which we could attribute to the actions of the murderer.

These kinds of observations make me think that free will is an illusion.

 

[Skwim]

Sam Harris has a lot to say about free will (some of them are worth a watch) but he raises some interesting points.

Yes, he too considers freewill to be an illusion.

When I think about free will, I think about the process of a thought. An idea, the compelling urge to do... something. In order for us to be the true 'authors' of our actions, whatever they might be, we would be required to know what we were thinking before we thought it. I don't know the exact structure of my next sentence any more than you do. Does that mean that we're not responsible for our actions? No... obviously we have some level of control before instinct kicks in.

Control that only arises because it can't do anything but arise. And we are responsible for our actions, but only in the sense that no one else did them.

That whole concept brings us to another interesting point. If we think of... say... a serial killer. When he's caught, he's probably going to spend the rest of his natural life in jail. Rightly so, morality would dictate. Now... if we fully understood the neurophysiology of any murderer or serial killer's brain, if we could somehow see how the genome combined with entanglement with other people, events and experiences helped sculpt the micro-structure in their brain so that it was guaranteed to produce violent states of mind ... I'd submit that it could be considered as exculpatory as finding a personality-changing tumour which we could attribute to the actions of the murderer.

Right up Sam Harris's ally here.

These kinds of observations make me think that free will is an illusion.

Good for you.

 

[ryanam]

It's not "up his alley". They're exactly his words. Glad you pointed it out though... you almost wasted a good opportunity to contribute something meaningful.

Control that only arises because it can't do anything but arise. And we are responsible for our actions, but only in the sense that no one else did them.

Control can't do anything but arise? So we're not actually pre-initialising control, it just fabricates itself? Sounds like you're agreeing but then you fall back into the whole "he did it so he's responsible" thing.

 

[Darkstorn]

Here's how i sees it:

You are responsible for your actions, and how you react to your thoughts. Here's the but: You might not always be responsible for your thoughts. In fact, when we look at it deeper; You are never truly responsible for your thoughts. And no it's not someone telling you what to do. At least not directly...

The universe itself is the cause for your thoughts: They function within it. Specifically, for most people their thoughts are influenced by the environment around them, the people they interact with, and the things they observe through the senses. But everything that can be experienced is subject to the laws of nature(you could replace this with physics if you like). And what has happened in your life prior to making a choice on how to proceed with an action are wholly subject to past phenomena. Case in point: By reading this i've potentially influenced thoughts into your head. And my ideas also come from somewhere else: In my view, nothing comes from within itself: I.E nothing can come out of nothingness.

You can always make the choice. There's will. But it's not free... Not in the sense that your FREEDOM has been taken from you. Rather: It's not free because all the possible "paths" have been made possible prior to choosing it.

I.E Everything happens because some prior phenomenon or event caused it to happen, and so forth and so forth. Karma if you will. In a non-magical sense.

 

[Willamena]

What motivates a thought?

In-formation.