(IFF) Free-Will is True (THEN) what?

Author: 3RU7AL

Posts

Total: 154
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
The strongest argument for the existence of free will is that we all observe it during every conscious moment, it is a fundamental and significant part of our experiential reality at all times, hence it is self-evident, a brute fact.
the FEELING of "free-will" is a private and personal gnostic experience that cannot be verified by science and therefore does not qualify as a "fact"

Our state of conscious awareness is a feature that trumps all others in the matter of epistemic authority.

I can see nothing more pointless than using the mind to limit the mind, if you deny our internal reality you subsequently deny logic, philosophy, arguments, your point of view, everyone else's point of view, science, everything that might constitute truth. 

And you are simply wrong, there is a boatload of scientific evidence verifying the neural correlates of consciousness, brain function, mapping of thought patterns, as well as psychological testing and the ability to scientifically study individual descriptions given of conscious experience.  
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Your argument that reality is either universally determined or universally random is nonsense,
or a clever mix of both

which doesn't solve either "problem"
False dichotomies are not problems that need to be solved.

They are non-sequitors at best.


3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Sidewalker
a boatload of scientific evidence
please link to this "boatload of scientific evidence" supporting "free-will"
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Sidewalker
False dichotomies are not problems that need to be solved.
a tautology is not a "false dichotomy"

there is only

determined (cause and effect)

and or

uncaused (functionally random)

and or

some MIX OF THE TWO

please explain which "other option" you personally believe i'm overlooking here
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
please explain what point you think this obsession with contradiction makes. 
seeking logical coherence is the only way to reduce cognitive dissonance
It's pretty clear you sit around trying to think of ways to increase cognitive dissonance, and I just don't understand why you think it is cleaver, is there a point?

Or are we just going to keep doing nonsequitors all day?

Do you think insects are seeking to reduce cognitive dissonance?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Sidewalker
Do you think insects are seeking to reduce cognitive dissonance?
insects seek food and shelter and reproductive opportunities
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you think insects are seeking to reduce cognitive dissonance?
insects seek food and shelter and reproductive opportunities

the FEELING of "insects seek food and shelter and reproductive opportunities" is a private and personal gnostic experience that cannot be verified by science and therefore does not qualify as a "fact"

How do you quantify insects "seeking".

Again, why do you think this innane banter is clever?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Sidewalker
How do you quantify insects "seeking".
scientific observation
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
How do you quantify insects "seeking".
scientific observation
Reading comprehension problem?  It's one thing to not understand what we type, but not understanding what you type is a real problem.  

You already said it's a private and personal gnostic experience that cannot be verified by science and therefore does not qualify as a "fact", so what does scientific observation have to do with anything?

Also, without free will, how is scientific observation possible, no conscious, no observation, no free will, no science.
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
a boatload of scientific evidence
please link to this "boatload of scientific evidence" supporting "free-will"
You don't actually read sentences do you, you scan them for certain trigger words that cause a Pavlovian reaction, is that it?

So the sentence fragment "a boatload of scientific evidence" that triggered your bot response, try reading the entire sentence that fragment came from, try to comprehend what it says, and then maybe do the research yourself. 

Just sticking your fingers in your ears and saying no no no, isn't an argument, and it doesn't eliminate the vast amount of scientific data about cognitive processes, neuroscience, psychology, psychiatry, behaviorism, and a lot more.  

Is there supposed to be some kind of hidden message in all this obtuse pointlessness, are we supposed to be able to hear the hand of one hand clapping or what?


3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Sidewalker
insect "seeking" behavior follows the same principle as a "heat seeking missile"

no "consciousness" required

only empirical observation
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Sidewalker
sentence fragment "a boatload of scientific evidence" that
refusing to support your own claims is not a particularly persuasive tactic
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
False dichotomies are not problems that need to be solved.
a tautology is not a "false dichotomy"

there is only

determined (cause and effect)

and or

uncaused (functionally random)

and or

some MIX OF THE TWO

please explain which "other option" you personally believe i'm overlooking here
Well well, isn't that obtuse and unrelated, your illogical and completely faith based claim that all three eliminate free will free will isn't valid, declarative statements are not arguments, you have made an extraordinary claim which requires an extraordinary argument, just declaring it to be so with no evidence at all is not any kind of argument.

Do you actually think that since you don't actually have an argument that means it can't be refuted, so your point is made?

Is that what all this nonsense is about?


3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Sidewalker
let me walk you through this slowly,

(1) YES OR NO - do we agree that 100% deterministic events makes "free-will" impossible ?

(2) YES OR NO - do we agree that 100% non-causal events makes "free-will" impossible ?
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
sentence fragment "a boatload of scientific evidence" that
refusing to support your own claims is not a particularly persuasive tactic
Denying the existence of science and then asking for a link that somehow convinces you that science does exist is about as lame as anything.  Certainly not even in the ballpark of persuasive, your use of the word "persuasive" refutes your claim, no free will, no consciousness, no persuading, it's amazing that you can't comprehend that. 

The existence of free will is the self-evident default state, if you want to deny the experiential reality of every waking moment and challenge the validity of every moral and legal system found in every known time and place where humans have ever existed, you have to do more than arbitrarily proclaim our experiential reality to be an illusion while presupposing the failed doctrine of determinism.  The denial of the self-evident truth of free will is an extraordinary claim, such a claim requires an extraordinary argument backed up by extraordinary evidence, you have provided no argument whatsoever.  Just faith based declarations and self-refuting statements.

Free will is self-evident because we are sentient beings, we are aware of, and interacting with our world, we have agency, and self-evident truth is not defeated by arbitrarily claiming “illusion”, or simple denial, that just isn’t how logic works.

I can’t believe I have to argue with you free will deniers that you are not zombies, and try to convince you that you are sentient, rational human beings, it is just amazing to me that I always have to defend you from your own self-directed ad Hominem attacks, I find that aspect of the free will debate to be bizarre.  

and I will never understand why you guys think it is so clever.  


K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
Based on my understanding of physics, it seems likely that the atoms in my brain work in the same deterministic fashion as all other atoms; that is, humans don't fully understand everything to the point that they can exactly predict what any given atom can do, but that with the right knowledge and understanding it theoretically could be predicted in advance.
If we define free will as the ability of a person (human or otherwise) to act in a way that isn't determined simply by the laws of the universe or "fate," then I would argue that humans do not possess free will.
This doesn't seem to match sidewalker's definition of free will, which seems to be dependent on "sentience", "awareness and interaction", and "agency." Agency is clearly just a synonym for free will, so I won't be going into that one.

Awareness and interaction with the world. Anything with sensory capabilities is "aware" of the world, even if they don't recognize a thing as it is. This goes from the ant that walks on a sidewalk, even if it doesn't realize it's a sidewalk, all the way to humans, to not only have sensory experiences, but tie names and anticipate further experiences based upon those experiences. For example, when I see a staircase in front of where I'm walking, I will anticipate the sensations of stepping down a series of stairs. If I'm paying attention, I can even anticipate how many times I will experience it. If I'm not paying so close attention, I may believe that I am at the bottom of the stairs sooner than I actually am, often resulting in stumbling or falling. Both of these are a fairly universal experience.
The same goes with interaction. A human may interact with the world in more complex ways, but every living thing interacts as well.

Sentience. Sentience is another controversial topic. Some advocates argue that dolphins, octopuses, chimpanzees, etc. are sentient as well as humans. I've even seen arguments that all animals, or even plants, are sentient. Sentience is generally agreed to be an emergent property of intelligence, the ability to not only think about your environment and actions, but to think about yourself and your thoughts. Clearly the language barrier between humans and other living things makes it difficult to determine how much, if any, self-reflection takes place in other minds. A true skeptic might first ask, how can we be so sure that humans are sentient?

Cogito ergo sum was a phrase coined by Descartes when he pondered knowledge itself; what can he be sure actually exists? His conclusion, "I think, therefore I am" gave him at least the assurance that his own thoughts were proof that at the very least he existed, even if everything else was a lie, or a shadow on a cave wall.
There are some strains of philosophical thought that claim that this is all we can know. You may already be familiar with the concept of P-Zombies, the idea of humans that behave in all the same ways as a true, sentient conscious human such as your self, except they aren't sentient. Personally, I am of the camp that no such thing can exist. Any process complicated enough to emulate conscious thought must itself be intelligent enough to just be conscious.
Based on my observations of other humans, there is clearly conscious thought on the other end, so the simplest explanation is that they are sentient humans just like me, with their own minds and inner thoughts. (I'm not going to get into simulation theory here, though it might make a good thread on its own).

So awareness and interaction is basically universal among living things, and sentience is (possibly) unique to humans, but how does it follow that humans must have free will? What special property of my neurochemistry makes it less causally determined than a computer algorithm? If there is one, is it evolutionary? Did one hominid a million years ago become the first creature with free will? If not, does that mean all animals with brains have the same free will? All life?


My main thought on the "problem" of free will is that it doesn't matter. I'm not going to start behaving differently if free will isn't a thing vs. if it is. Personally, I haven't seriously cared about the question since I was religious. (The Mormon idea of everyone having "agency" but God still has perfect knowledge of the future is problematic to say the least, and was one of the reasons I left)
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@K_Michael
If we define free will as the ability of a person (human or otherwise) to act in a way that isn't determined simply by the laws of the universe or "fate," then I would argue that humans do not possess free will.
well stated
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@K_Michael
Personally, I am of the camp that no such thing can exist. Any process complicated enough to emulate conscious thought must itself be intelligent enough to just be conscious.
GPT3
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@K_Michael
My main thought on the "problem" of free will is that it doesn't matter. I'm not going to start behaving differently if free will isn't a thing vs. if it is.
accepting indeterminism does tend to help people become somewhat less vindictive
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Personally, I am of the camp that no such thing can exist. Any process complicated enough to emulate conscious thought must itself be intelligent enough to just be conscious.
GPT3
I've used GPT-3 extensively (I was granted beta access this spring). It's incredibly good, but there are a lot of things it still reliably messes up. That being said, if someone was ransoming the life of a chimpanzee vs. the only copy of GPT-3, I would likely choose GPT-3, because it is an intelligent process, even if its thoughts are nowhere close to analogous to human thought.

My main thought on the "problem" of free will is that it doesn't matter. I'm not going to start behaving differently if free will isn't a thing vs. if it is.
accepting indeterminism does tend to help people become somewhat less vindictive
I've seen a lot more people who try to excuse morality instead. "I don't have free will, I can't help being an asshole/criminal. You can't punish someone for being evil if it 'isn't their fault.'" Empathy is more important to me in terms of vindictiveness and dispensation of justice.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@K_Michael
I've seen a lot more people who try to excuse morality instead. "I don't have free will, I can't help being an asshole/criminal. You can't punish someone for being evil if it 'isn't their fault.'" Empathy is more important to me in terms of vindictiveness and dispensation of justice.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@K_Michael
You can't punish someone for being evil
"punishment" is misguided and almost always causes more harm than good to everyone involved

the aim should be to "mitigate harm"

you don't have to personally blame a rabid dog for their life-choices in order to recognize the rabid dog is a "danger to society" and take some humane measures to reduce that "danger to society"
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@K_Michael
I've used GPT-3 extensively (I was granted beta access this spring). It's incredibly good, but there are a lot of things it still reliably messes up.
are you familiar with LaMDA ?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@K_Michael
also,

K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
-->
@3RU7AL

I have heard of LaMDA, but obviously haven't been able to interact with it at all. I do believe that AI is capable of sentience, if that's what you're driving at. GPT-3 may itself be sentient, (though I would argue with a sample size of one humanity is far from defining sentience in a satisfying way).

I will share my thoughts on the videos when I have watched them.
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@K_Michael
Finally, someone who appears to want to have a serious discussion about the subject matter, thank you.

Based on my understanding of physics, it seems likely that the atoms in my brain work in the same deterministic fashion as all other atoms; that is, humans don't fully understand everything to the point that they can exactly predict what any given atom can do, but that with the right knowledge and understanding it theoretically could be predicted in advance.
With all due respect, I’m afraid your understanding of physics is dated, let’s take a look at what determinism really was, and still is, to understand it better.  Initially it was nothing but a thought experiment about Newton’s mathematics that was best articulated by Pierre Laplace, who combined the determinism of Newton’s equations with epistemological and metaphysical reductionism to portray all of nature as strictly materialistic and perfectly deterministic. Within Newton’s mathematics, determinism is an abstract theoretical idea that simplifies physical systems enough to allow the use of logical and mathematical methods on idealized abstract "objects" and "events”, but what does this abstraction say about the real world?
 
Two hundred years later it has not made any credible advance beyond being an abstract theoretical “thought experiment”.  By “any credible advance” I mean evidence, evidence that it is something more than an abstracted thought experiment, and there has been none whatsoever, while the counterfactual evidence has grown exponentially during that time.

It’s important to recognize exactly what Laplace (and before him Leibnitz) proposed, it was explicitly that, IF the mathematics we apply to our physical systems is consistent and complete, which is to say that mathematics itself is completely deterministic (Godel proved that it isn’t), AND reality is completely circumscribed by Newtonian mechanics (and it isn’t), AND the motion of every particle in the universe can in principle be predicted from exact knowledge of its position, momentum, and the forces acting on it (and it can’t),  AND everything occurred within a single, universal reference frame where an absolute Euclidean space and an absolute time that passes uniformly, are independent aspects of reality (and they aren’t), THEN “theoretically”, all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by purely physical causes such that, there is one and only one possible effect for a particular cause or set of causes, (and there isn’t).

Our two most accurate prevailing scientific theories, Relativity Theory and Quantum Physics are explicit that reality is not the Newtonian World Machine that Laplace believed in, and Heisenberg showed us that even in principle, adequate knowledge of a particle’s position, momentum, and the forces acting on it are impossible, and it isn’t that we can’t know with the necessary precision, it is that the requisite exactness of those quantities doesn’t actually occur in reality. Determinism requires Newton’s autonomous and absolute Euclidean space along with an autonomous and absolute time that passes uniformly, and those presumptions have been proven to be false for well over a century. 
Determinism requires the causal closure of the material world; science has not even come close to establishing the causal closure of the material world.  The 200-year-old idea that Newtonian physics translates into a mechanistic and deterministic model of the universe was never demonstrated, and in fact, it has proven to be counterfactual many times and on multiple levels. At the bottom of it all, most physical processes turned out to be probabilistic rather than deterministic, they tried but the thought experiment just didn’t apply to the real world, not in practice, or even theoretically.

If we define free will as the ability of a person (human or otherwise) to act in a way that isn't determined simply by the laws of the universe or "fate," then I would argue that humans do not possess free will.
This doesn't seem to match sidewalker's definition of free will, which seems to be dependent on "sentience", "awareness and interaction", and "agency." Agency is clearly just a synonym for free will, so I won't be going into that one.
The reason that this concept has been so hotly debated for centuries is that it is it is a matter of our identity; it speaks to what and who we are as human beings. 

For people who believe in Free Will, as well as its deniers, it is the presumptive principle behind all our social interactions, our ethics, our laws, and our civilization.  We exist as human beings in a social context which clearly presupposes that we are responsible for our actions, and our experiential reality is one in which we are conscious beings existing as free and responsible causal agents which act in a teleological manner, which is to say, in a purposeful and goal directed way guided by intent, values, purpose and meaning. 

Whether it is an illusion or not, I think we should be able to agree that there is a self-evident quality that we are referring to with the term “free will”, experientially known as the human feeling or sensation of exerting the force of consciousness to some effect, which minimally has the following characteristics.

As you alluded, the common understanding of the term “free will” is contrasted with “fatalism”, the belief that we have the conscious ability to affect outcomes in some manner that makes fatalism, the belief that events are irrevocably fixed, a false proposition because human effort can in fact, alter outcomes, illusory or not, free will is the belief that the future is not beyond our control. The belief in free will then, is a a contention that we have the ability to select a course of action as a means of fulfilling some desire which is consistent with an ability to judge some ends as ‘good’ or worth pursuing and value them. If we do in fact have free will, then it follows that we can have some effect on our personal and corporate tomorrows, which is to say that we are free to plan the future, and that our resultant intentions make a real difference in the world. 
Free will then, relates to a “perceived control” which is a matter of whether I could have acted otherwise, that implies both the ability to select among alternatives and the ability to determine the means by which we will achieve goals. We can reasonably include the philosophical concept that free will involves the capacity to act with moral responsibility, which is to say that we are morally responsible agents if and only if, we possess free will. Therefore, to say that we possess free will is to say that the unity of consciousness involves the integration of motivating factors such as perceptions, ideologies, and beliefs in a manner that provides a unity of response that consists of the integration of behavior is such a way that there is some non-zero probability that our behavioral outcome could be altered by the choices made by a causally effective self.

What the real debate comes down to then is whether free will has an ontological status of existence which would be indicated by a logical determination as to whether or not the self, as it has been defined, is at times a causal agent as well as an entity that is acted upon by external causes.

Awareness and interaction with the world. Anything with sensory capabilities is "aware" of the world, even if they don't recognize a thing as it is. This goes from the ant that walks on a sidewalk, even if it doesn't realize it's a sidewalk, all the way to humans, to not only have sensory experiences, but tie names and anticipate further experiences based upon those experiences. For example, when I see a staircase in front of where I'm walking, I will anticipate the sensations of stepping down a series of stairs. If I'm paying attention, I can even anticipate how many times I will experience it. If I'm not paying so close attention, I may believe that I am at the bottom of the stairs sooner than I actually am, often resulting in stumbling or falling. Both of these are a fairly universal experience.
The same goes with interaction. A human may interact with the world in more complex ways, but every living thing interacts as well.
Wouldn’t you agree that sensory capabilities and an awareness of the world implies an entity that is aware, this transactional relationship with the world presupposes a “self” that experiences awareness?
 
The “self” then, is that entity that is aware via a single unified conscious experience of the world, in which particular experiences are unified into a more complex experience that provides continuity of self over time allowing us to relate the continual stream of temporal experiences, recall antecedent experiences, and make comparisons of the contents of experience. In human beings at least, the self is not only aware of the contents of experience, but is also self-aware, there is a “single common subject of one's experience”, which is to say that we possess the quality of “self-consciousness”, we do not only know, we know that we know, so to speak.

Sentience. Sentience is another controversial topic. Some advocates argue that dolphins, octopuses, chimpanzees, etc. are sentient as well as humans. I've even seen arguments that all animals, or even plants, are sentient. Sentience is generally agreed to be an emergent property of intelligence, the ability to not only think about your environment and actions, but to think about yourself and your thoughts. Clearly the language barrier between humans and other living things makes it difficult to determine how much, if any, self-reflection takes place in other minds. A true skeptic might first ask, how can we be so sure that humans are sentient?
You may have seen me make that argument here, I believe a strong argument can be made that in an extremely attenuated way, sentience is a characteristic of life from single celled organisms to human beings.

continued...
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@K_Michael


Cogito ergo sum was a phrase coined by Descartes when he pondered knowledge itself; what can he be sure actually exists? His conclusion, "I think, therefore I am" gave him at least the assurance that his own thoughts were proof that at the very least he existed, even if everything else was a lie, or a shadow on a cave wall.
Yes, and its why Descartes is considered by many to be the father of modern philosophy, he established that all we really know directly and in an unmediated form is our subjective experience, which is to say, our sensations, the cause of those sensations can only be known by the manner in which we interact with it, which is to say, subjectively.  Immanuel Kant is also considered by many to be the father of modern philosophy for a similar reason, and Kant’s major contribution was to explain to us that the mind is constructive, all we can know is phenomena, the underlying realty that is causing these sensations is no more than a presumption of sorts.  The only knowing there can be is a “mode” of knowing.  We pretty much have to presume that there is something “out there” causing these sensations we have “in here”, in our mind, but we don’t, and can’t, know it directly, we can only know it by the uniquely human manner of sensing and knowing available to us. 
 
Consequently, what is commonly referred to as “objective” reality is nothing more than the presumed cause of our sensations, and it is necessarily conceptual, a theoretical construct that is developed by the mind, within the constraints of the structure of the mind, and utilizing the raw materials that the mind produces by processing our sensations.  What we call “objective reality” is a projection “out there”, of the subjective experience we are having “in here”, in our mind.  What we end up with, is not reality per se, it is only the kind of reality that our kind of mind produces.  Within the mind, our sensations result in perceptions, which are given form by a process of the mind, and which subsequently, results in concepts, which are further given form by a process of the mind.  What we call “objective” reality, is something that results from a chain of inferential reasoning, and it is a uniquely human style of inferential reasoning, inferred from a uniquely human set of sensitivities, with a uniquely human way of processing information. You pretty much have to conclude that the world we experience is completely defined by the mind experiencing it, and it logically follows that a different kind of mind would experience a different kind of reality, and they would live and move and have their being in a different universe.  So the resulting “objective” reality isn’t really all that objective, it is nothing more than a mental construct extrapolated from our uniquely human, and completely subjective, way of experiencing reality.  Our five primary senses aren’t exhaustive by any stretch of the imagination, and our process of thinking isn’t necessarily the only way of thinking, an intelligent being with a different set of senses than ours, and with a different manner of reasoning, a different kind of mind so to speak, would necessarily experience a different universe than the one we experience. 


There are some strains of philosophical thought that claim that this is all we can know. You may already be familiar with the concept of P-Zombies, the idea of humans that behave in all the same ways as a true, sentient conscious human such as your self, except they aren't sentient. Personally, I am of the camp that no such thing can exist. Any process complicated enough to emulate conscious thought must itself be intelligent enough to just be conscious.
I agree with you on this, David Chalmers is one of my favorite writers in the philosophy of mind, but when he starts talking P-Zombies, it’s only a matter of time before I just want to kill myself. 

Based on my observations of other humans, there is clearly conscious thought on the other end, so the simplest explanation is that they are sentient humans just like me, with their own minds and inner thoughts. (I'm not going to get into simulation theory here, though it might make a good thread on its own).

So awareness and interaction is basically universal among living things, and sentience is (possibly) unique to humans, but how does it follow that humans must have free will? What special property of my neurochemistry makes it less causally determined than a computer algorithm? If there is one, is it evolutionary? Did one hominid a million years ago become the first creature with free will? If not, does that mean all animals with brains have the same free will? All life?
There are a lot of speculative theories about the “special property of my neurochemistry that makes it less causally determined”, while a strong argument that quantum mechanics alone defeats the argument for determinism, it concurrently provides at least a possible explanatory potential for the science behind the neurological correlates of free will. 
 
Quantum mechanics can certainly be interpreted to be telling us that matter is ultimately 'non-material' and non-local, and that mind and matter are interdependent. Free will's requisite freedom involves two components, the existence of alternatives and the ability to choose. The probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics can certainly be interpreted as providing numerous possible futures, providing the chance, and the fact that matter and energy are represented by probability waves that only collapse into locatable particles when an observation is made, could be explanatory regarding how mind can choose the actual reality from the possible alternatives.


My main thought on the "problem" of free will is that it doesn't matter. I'm not going to start behaving differently if free will isn't a thing vs. if it is. Personally, I haven't seriously cared about the question since I was religious. (The Mormon idea of everyone having "agency" but God still has perfect knowledge of the future is problematic to say the least, and was one of the reasons I left)
There are a large number of scientific studies that say it does matter, quite a bit in fact.

Many studies have been done on the centrality of agency to both our feelings of success and our actual success. When we feel in control of our life outcomes as active agents, we tend to perform better and be happier overall. And the belief in free will is shown to be an important element in feeling in control, feeling like what we do matters has important consequences for how we lead our lives.

Increasing evidence suggests that people’s views about free will bear on their pro-social behaviors, sense of personal control, and general well-being. Experiments have demonstrated that discouraging a belief in free will leads to less helping, more aggression, more mindless conformity, less feeling of guilt, less learning of moral lessons from one’s misdeeds, and less counterfactual thinking about how one might have behaved better.  Believing in free will is positively correlated with better career prospects and job performance, and is positively correlated with a host of positive attributes (including: self-control, life satisfaction, subjective happiness, mindfulness, and ambition) and negatively correlated with several less desirable traits (such as neuroticism, lack of trust, and cheating).

These studies point out the positive effect of free will on a variety of behaviors that most people would consider beneficial. It seems that most of us already have a firm belief in free will and so we’re already benefiting, but it is clear that whether or not we believe in free will has a strong influence on how we live and experience our lives.


ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
1) YES OR NO - do we agree that 100% deterministic events makes "free-will" impossible ?
Yes.  We only have an illusion of free will, an at best, even the illusion of limited free will, is limited our abilities to pull a plane plummeting to Earth in a downward spiral i.e. somethings are beyond the possible. We can not violate inviolate cosmic principles or physical laws.

Some of the problem is people confusing less complex consciousness with that of more complex consciousness.

1} least complex nervous system..." Instead of a brain, hydra have the most basic nervous system in nature, a nerve net in which neurons spread throughout its body. Even so, researchers still know almost nothing about how the hydra’s few thousand neurons interact to create behaviour...

...For example, a circuit that seems to be involved in digestion in the hydra’s stomach-like cavity became active whenever the animal opened its mouth to feed. This circuit may be an ancestor of our gut nervous system, the pair suggest.

2} most complex nervous system....woman with man coming in 2nd. They both have a consciousness, that, allows for access to Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego. Their complexity leads to hydrogen bombs, rocket ships to moon an spacecraft beyond/Meta our solar system.

3} animals with no nervous system...." Corals are complex, many-celled organisms. Sponges are very simple creatures with no tissues.  Are they aware? Can we only assigned less complex consciousness to  nervous system?  I think that is to limiting.

4} mininimal consciousness.....twoness ergo otherness is minimal set for consciousness. Ex two particles of matter have mass-attraction/Gravity ---inward process---  to each other. Enough of these particles eventually collect to become a star and then an outward process begins as electro-magnetic radiation { photons } and other kinds of particles.

5} Inward and outward consciousness...Sea sponges are one of the world's simplest multi-cellular living organisms. Yes, sea sponges are considered animals not plants. But they grow, reproduce and survive much as plants do. They have no central nervous system, digestive system or circulatory system – and no organs!

......These pores allow water to flow in and out of the sponge. In this way, the sponge gathers the food and oxygen it needs to thrive, and releases waste.

Universe is consciousness, however, unlike humans, ---with their access to abstractions of Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego--- who seek purpose for their existence, Universe seeks no purpose for its existence.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The following is humans seeking purpose for Universe and our existence.

Fred wrote the book ' The intelligent Universe ' an  other books.
...“It isn't the Universe that's following our logic, it's we that are constructed in accordance with the logic of the Universe. And that gives what I might call a definition of intelligent life: something that reflects the basic structure of the Universe.”
― Fred Hoyle, The Black Cloud

..." The fine-structure constant, ---FSC--- by contrast, has no dimensions or units. It’s a pure number that shapes the universe to an astonishing degree — “a magic number that comes to us with no understanding,” as Richard Feynman described it. Paul Dirac considered the origin of the number “the most fundamental unsolved problem of physics........ 

....The team measured the constant’s value to the 11th decimal place, reporting that α = 1/137.035999206. "....

1/137.035999206 = 0.00 72 97 35 25 62 78 71 35 75157612442534

Pi^ 3.0003 =......... 31.00 73 41 51 29 30 84 7 20 16 21 37 57 14 128

My explorations led to above the close values, at least on the irrational side of  abstract  Pi^3 { XYZ }. If we round off the FSC, we have 0.0073. And if we round off the irrational side of Pi^3  we have 31.00 73.  If look at the differrence between those two values we see how much differrence there is.

0.000044160368......and this transcendental  Pi resultant value to me is similar to the saying ...' just splitting hairs ', ie. they are so close, it may not matter much, that diffferrence.  ..." The digits of pi and e never end, nor has anyone detected an orderly pattern in their arrangement. " LINK

So no order or pattern in abstract Pi, however Pi does have rational side to it.  Prime number 3.

In my exploration of Pi^3 { XYZ } we have rational resultant prime number 31. So now we have entered into the seemingly randomness of Pi and of semi-random prime numbers.

2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71, 73, 79, 83, 89, 97

Our illusion of free will is limited by the above Pi, Pi^3, and prime number occurrence. I.e. we cannot change those abstract resultant values, nor can we make them orderly instead of random.  So the next question is, does this abstract randomness = an abstraction of free will? What does that abstraction of free will even mean?
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
I've seen a lot more people who try to excuse morality instead. "I don't have free will, I can't help being an asshole/criminal. You can't punish someone for being evil if it 'isn't their fault.'" Empathy is more important to me in terms of vindictiveness and dispensation of justice.
(^Eagleman lecture)

I stand by the lack of free will not excusing moral culpability. I'm not a fan of the current US justice system, but a justice system does need to exist to deter crime. Obviously rehabilitation would be preferable, but I suspect that it would work better in theory than execution.

(Neuron-integrated computer chips)

While this is interesting for the future of computing and possibly our understand of brain structure, it doesn't really directly relate to consciousness in my eyes. The medium of thought/computation doesn't matter to me. The only important distinction to me is that human neural circuitry like this is inherently wired for pain and pleasure in a sense that we can understand, whereas LaMDA or some future AI might feel something we can't understand  or even see. The pro to the former is that we should be able to tell if it is suffering, and hopefully prevent it. With the latter, LaMDA can't necessarily communicate that to us because it doesn't think in text anymore than we think in the shapes and sounds that our mouths make. And we can't measure it because neural networks might as well be a black box for human thought.
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
Our decision and choices are individually determined based on our biology and psychological makeup. So the exercise of free will is not the same for everyone. But because society holds us all responsible for our actions. We all have to conform to a set of standards which might appear limiting our exercise of free will.