What is your stance on free will?

[Gjallarhorn]

It's not my understanding that probability is based in randomness.

Flip a coin once and in a probabilistic system you cannot determine what the result will be. Flip that same coin a million times and for each flip you will still be unable to determine what the result will be.

That's randomness, regardless of higher pattern.

 

[Willamena]

Flip a coin once and in a probabilistic system you cannot determine what the result will be. Flip that same coin a million times and for each flip you will still be unable to determine what the result will be.

That's randomness, regardless of higher pattern.

Not being able to determine what the probability will be is... not probability.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Not being able to determine what the probability will be is... not probability.

Determining the probability is what occurs over the course of many flips. One coin flip at a time shows that the definite result is always unknown and unpredictable. Random.

 

[Willamena]

Determining the probability is what occurs over the course of many flips. One coin flip at a time shows that the definite result is always unknown and unpredictable. Random.

A definitive or actual outcome is also not probability.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

A definitive or actual outcome is also not probability.

Then a probabilistic world cannot exist, since existence typically requires definition and actuality.

 

[Willamena]

Then a probabilistic world cannot exist, since existence typically requires definition and actuality.

That's because it's past-tense.

It is actual. It's already occured, and as observers all we have to do is watch the show.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

That's because it's past-tense.

It is actual. It's already occured, and as observers all we have to do is watch the show.

And to watch doesn't require free will.

 

[idav]

Q & A: Is the brain a quantum device? | Department of Physics | University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

That first answer is missing the information from the Quantum Computer article I pointed at. They got passed decoherence by using redundancy and quantum entanglement, making quantum computing possible with answers we can actually predict before it happens. Brains have this redundancy and it wouldn't surprise me to find entanglement is involved. The neural network allows for neurons to know what other neurons are doing and "thinking" and neural networks are dynamic and not completely subject to determinism. Heck even our memories are sporadic in the sense that you can't find the memory in the same place as before, just the general areas.

 

[Willamena]

And to watch doesn't require free will.

This is the case. *nods*

And that is followed by the argument that the observer, the observed and the act of observation are not distinct entities, but one. When we are the world that we participate in, there is nothing standing between that decision that was made unconsciously and the moment of awareness of it.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

That first answer is missing the information from the Quantum Computer article I pointed at. They got passed decoherence by using redundancy and quantum entanglement, making quantum computing possible with answers we can actually predict before it happens. Brains have this redundancy and it wouldn't surprise me to find entanglement is involved. The neural network allows for neurons to know what other neurons are doing and "thinking" and neural networks are dynamic and not completely subject to determinism. Heck even our memories are sporadic in the sense that you can't find the memory in the same place as before, just the general areas.

Then it must be shown that indeterminism allows for agency to actually affect reality, and not just explain brains to be a crazy cyclical cacophony.

 

[Willamena]

Then it must be shown that indeterminism allows for agency to actually affect reality...

Indeterminism as probablity does, because probablity is an act of calculation and that requires a calculator (agent) and some statistics.

 

[idav]

Then it must be shown that indeterminism allows for agency to actually affect reality, and not just explain brains to be a crazy cyclical cacophony.

Free will would be dependent on indeterminism which should allow for our agency to determine. This can't be ruled out AFAIK.

Yes. Full circle.

 

[Skwim]

Indeterminism as probablity does, because probablity is an act of calculation and that requires a calculator (agent) and some statistics.

So the probability of a leaf falling off a tree in July rather than in fall doesn't exist unless someone calculates it? I suggest that any such act of calculation is simply the act of identifying the probability. Not establishing it.

 

[Thief]

We are not a car and while you don't buy it, its how the brain physically works.

You also use the subconscious to drive you make decisions while driving you don't consciously think about, the subconscious is making the decisions. It saves time and resources from your conscious mind. It would get overwhelmed.

None the less.....the lesser portions......don't guide the choice.
They just make it possible.

Even so again......having thought doesn't mean you're free.

If you are doing someone else's will....you are not free.

Don't you know the difference?

You are defined by your denials.

Ever give direction to someone who 'thought' they knew where they were going?
Did they do your will?.....or did they go they way they thought they should.

If your hand does anything at all....it's because you thought you should....
or you felt like it.

So...are you in control of your thoughts?...your feelings?
Or are you insane?
Or are you disobedient and rebellious?

What will you say in your hour of judgment?

"oh!...sorry about that!.....couldn't help myself!"

'Think' it 'will' matter?

 

[VocoInDubium]

How would you define freewill? Is free will a reality or an illusion of false power fostered by an awareness of self and the choices we think we make consciously? I'm in the con freewill camp. What about you and why do you believe as you do?

It is an illusion. I have no more ability to choose what I do then does a bouyant pebble caught in quick current.

Neither does anyone else. Although they believe they do. Which is the illusion part. Leeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeroy Jenkins!

 

[shawn001]

Ouch, that stings a little.

Knowledge is power. Being more aware of our influences doesn't make freedom an illusion it makes freedom that much more attainable.

:yes:

As in understanding how the brain works.

 

[shawn001]

By what mechanism? How many atoms are necessary to form a neuron, and how many neurons are there in the brain?

At what point can a hand draw itself?

I am trying to understand something here Gjallarhorn, we can figure out how many atoms form a neuron and how many neurons are there in the brain basically.

Am I missing something here?

 

[shawn001]

This is the case. *nods*

And that is followed by the argument that the observer, the observed and the act of observation are not distinct entities, but one. When we are the world that we participate in, there is nothing standing between that decision that was made unconsciously and the moment of awareness of it.

"And that is followed by the argument that the observer, the observed and the act of observation are not distinct entities, but one."

Well QM theory falls into this but won't go there.

Perception. We don't all "observe" the world the same way.

"there is nothing standing between that decision that was made unconsciously and the moment of awareness of it."

As I pointed out, time for one as the neurons fire and communicate and make a decision that you then become consciously aware of. So the decision has been made, before consciously know about it. This is a point I have been trying to make to you. Your saying right here your NOT "consciously" aware of making it and what is free in that? So your weren't really consciously 'freely' making the decision. That is part of the illusion.

 

[sinzzer]

How would you define freewill? Is free will a reality or an illusion of false power fostered by an awareness of self and the choices we think we make consciously? I'm in the con freewill camp. What about you and why do you believe as you do?

If you ask me, the free will concept has nothing to do with free choices.
I think Its more about the nature of human.
Humans are the only species on this planet who develop culture and a society.
And in that society humans created laws,countrys, religions and languages.
Because of this, we created a personality based on the experience we have and norms we learn and lost and forgot our true nature meanwhile.

We are humans first, we are not americans,europians, asians, africans ,moslims,christians,atheists or what ever.....
That is just what we think we are and that is a ilusion, we try to fool ourselfs with our mind.
This make our will of nature not free, and with logic,facts,knowledge and the truth. We might get experience to get wisdom,so we can learn the path to return to our true nature.

Its obvious free will issent about the choices we all can make, because every choice we make will be influenced by our feelings, or visual sighting, smell,consciounes ,memory ,life experiences and basics needs to live.
So science or everyone else can debunked the free will argument with a few facts about our brains and other things, and then you can accept the facts or still believe what you want.

It would be different when you see the will as our true nature, in prison by our mind/logic/thoughts.
And this make our will not free, and the only way to free yourself is by walking the path of true to unlightment.
Humanity created culture and forgot and lost there nature.
But this is my opinion.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

I am trying to understand something here Gjallarhorn, we can figure out how many atoms form a neuron and how many neurons are there in the brain basically.

Am I missing something here?

It was an attempt to show just how far from baseline the human brain operates. Even if the world is probabilistic or even chaotic as its core, at higher levels the randomness subsides into Newtonian physics.