View Full Version : Proof that free will exists
So... Can anyone show proof that free will exists? That we are not merely directed by past events?
I believe I have asked before, but did not recieve proof. And no, this is not for university. I just have trouble finding absolute proof of free will.
I always agreed that free-will is an illusion. I think it is a good illusion though. I envy the people who are blessed with it.
Njorl
Originally posted by Adam
So... Can anyone show proof that free will exists? That we are not merely directed by past events?
I believe I have asked before, but did not recieve proof. And no, this is not for university. I just have trouble finding absolute proof of free will.
Adam,
I don't know how familiar you are with previous threads on this matter, but I have always responded with the same answer, and I will respond here: It is impossible to prove free will over predestination, or vice versa.
I'll explain why:
If I wished to prove free will, then I would take steps in that direction. However, every step I take in that direction could be what I was predestined to do, and therefore every attempt I make to prove free will just further validates predestination.
The same is true of predestination...if I took steps to prove predestination, each of those steps could be a freely chosen step out of the other possibilities, and thus every attempt I make at proving predestination further validates free will.
russ_watters
Dec4-03, 11:41 AM
I agree with Mendat - and therefore CHOOSE to act according to free will. [:D]
You guys ever read Oedipus? At first glance it appears to be saying that you can't escape your fate. It isn't. Its saying make your own choices and your fate becomes whatever you want it to be.
mikehuntsloose
Dec4-03, 11:57 AM
I tend to look at "free will" like this. If i have this will, the decision to will this will was brought upon another will that caused the initial will that I first had to happen. Therefore, the choice I make based upon this will I have was determined in advance by another will that willed upon it. So how can this will, which i think is free, be free if the cause of this will was the effect of a past or another will?
Originally posted by mikehuntsloose
I tend to look at "free will" like this. If i have this will, the decision to will this will was brought upon another will that caused the initial will that I first had to happen. Therefore, the choice I make based upon this will I have was determined in advance by another will that willed upon it. So how can this will, which i think is free, be free if the cause of this will was the effect of a past or another will?
Your view is commonly referred to as "determinism" (which is different from predestination). Determinism basically says that we do choose between other possible choices, but these choices are predetermined by choices that we've made before...ergo, if I could know every factor involved in your past then I could determine with 100% accuracy which you choice you will make in this new situation.
I don't like this view, personally, since it's basically free will (re-stated) and predestination (also re-stated), in my opinion. You see, if there is no probability of my choosing anything other than that which past experience has determined that I will choose, then I am predestined. However, at the same time, the very fact that I can make a choice (however limited) seems to indicate free will with the addition of overwhelming limiting factors. So, I say that determinism is a slightly "grey area", but fits in better with predestination, and cannot be proven for the same reasons.
btw, Welcome to the PFs, mikehuntsloose. [:)]
I think I'm predestined to have free-will. But I'm also willing to do anything but not sure if it's possible. I'm lost....
Blissfulpain
Dec4-03, 10:26 PM
hey, neato... i made my quote before i read this thread lol... i figured i didn't have free-will way back in grade seven(18 years old now), same time i became atheist...
basically i think of it in the sense of not free will and predestination, but more as an order Vs. chaos/randomness argument.
the laws of physics are laws based on what we see, they aren't really substantial as far as an atom is concerned, the atom will do whatever it is supposed to do, regardless of what the human "laws of physics" say. we, however, are pretty good at predicting such things... so it makes me wonder, if every event is based on past events, then whatever will happen is "ordered". ie every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
now if things are random, then there is nothing that governs how an event will react to another event, no rules.. no laws of physics, no predictability of ANYTHING, and it all falls apart... ie chaos.
it like a computer, in order there are 1 and 0... simply yes and no. and rules can be built on such certanties. in chaos the number can be anything.. in fact, you can't even limit it to a number! it could be an atom, matter, energy, nothing at all... or something i don't know of and maybe never will. as soon as you put a limit on it, then it is no longer random, but contained within something and therefore predictable because to be limited, is to follow a rule and to follow a rule is to be based on something. once based on something you lose all randomness.
so, maybe the universe was only random once... at the moment it all came to be... the universe calculated one randomness and then we all spawned from that. so until the universe ends, then nothing in it will be random again.
so, my proof of no free-will is the fact that i exist in a world that is predictable with little error, based on whatever scraps of information i can obtain with my 5 senses to make those predictions.
i think this also is the major reason about the big fuss between qantum mechanics and string theory (or M-theory)... one has an uncertainty principle, which is there to balance randomness. the other is a "theory of everything"... so one of them will prove it, however i doubt anyone will pay attention anyways no matter the outcome... that is human nature, what we can't accept we ignore.
personally i can accept either way, but current evidence points me towards no free-will... but that doesn't mean i'm going to lay down and die... it means i'm going to make the best of whatever this universe has to offere me[:))]
confutatis
Dec5-03, 11:59 AM
If you look at the history of ideas, you will find that the less meaningful a question, the longer its answer remains elusive. Then someone comes along and clearly shows that the question lacks meaning, and all of a sudden a centuries-old philosophical dilemma suddenly vanishes into thin air.
For instance, take the famous chicken-and-egg imbroglio. It does sound puzzling at first, but how much does one have to think until one realizes that both chicken and egg must necessarily have come from something that is neither a chicken nor an egg? This answer was knowable centuries before biology came about, yet people assumed there was some unsolvable mystery behind the issue.
And so it is with this free-will imbroglio. Can you honestly believe that given a choice between, say, coffee and tea, there is some absolute law of the universe which forces you to choose one and decline the other? Can anyone really believe that nonsense? I very much doubt it, so why the debate? Ah, but there is a reason!
The moment you choose to drink coffee you immediately lose your freedom to drink tea. Your free-will regarding that choice is gone forever. But that doesn't mean you didn't have free-will then, it only means you don't have it now. You give up your freedom to choose so you can actually choose! What use would it be to stare at two cups of beverage for an eternity, only to be sure you have freedom of choice?
Strange as it is for me, to understand the above seems beyond the ability of some people. Which is why we need someone to come up with a formal proof, preferrably a mathematical one, that the concept of free-will is mutually exclusive with the concept of action. The two can't possibly co-exist. It's like the photon, it can be a wave or a particle, and it may be hard to understand why, but it's easy enough to understand why a photon can never be both at the same time.
selfAdjoint
Dec5-03, 01:11 PM
It certainly SEEMS to us that we have free will. Your whole argument is based on that appearance, AKA common sense.
But on reflection, do we find that appearance really so? That is the question people have asked over the ages, and which your post misses the point of. Given that we seem to have free will, do we really?
The scientific interpretation in which all our actions and decisions arise from prior neurochemical interactions, which are presumed to be deterministic, undermines our casual cofidence. So do things like Libet's experiment (see thread on biology board), which seem to say our bodies begin going about tea drinking a second or so before we make the conscious decision to reject coffee. So it's not the open and shut case you suppose.
confutatis
Dec5-03, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
It certainly SEEMS to us that we have free will. Your whole argument is based on that appearance, AKA common sense.
It’s not, it’s based on logic. It’s most people’s notion of free-will that is based on appearances and commonsense. What I’m trying to say is that the definition of free-will implies a paradox. As understood by most people’s “commonsense”, neither free-will nor determinism can possibly exist.
But on reflection, do we find that appearance really so? That is the question people have asked over the ages, and which your post misses the point of.
But my point is that they are asking the wrong question. Our actions are neither free nor deterministic, the two concepts don’t apply to the mental act of thinking over our actions. It’s the act of thinking that determines our actions, and thought can’t be free of itself.
The scientific interpretation in which all our actions and decisions arise from prior neurochemical interactions, which are presumed to be deterministic, undermines our casual cofidence.
This is an entirely issue altogether. What you are saying is that it’s possible that “we” are controlled by neurochemical interactions. I wonder exactly what you think “we” are other than “neurochemical interactions”. Are you picturing a ghost inside your body whose actions are totally determined by the body? If you are your body and your actions are determined by your body, where exactly is the problem?
So do things like Libet's experiment (see thread on biology board), which seem to say our bodies begin going about tea drinking a second or so before we make the conscious decision to reject coffee. So it's not the open and shut case you suppose.
The “ghost in the body” thing again. So Libet’s experiment proves that when “we” think we are moving our arm, we are fooling ourselves, the arm has a mind of his own and we have no power over it. Exactly where does “we” end and “arm” begin? Does anyone really think like that? I know Libet himself never said such a thing, it makes no sense.
selfAdjoint
Dec5-03, 05:51 PM
No I don't believe in a ghost or a homunculus inside my body or my brain. The farthest I would go is to describe my brain and body as analogous to hardware and my mind and consciousness as analogous to software, implemented on that hardware. In other words as a pattern the neural interactions make.
Iacchus32
Dec6-03, 06:45 AM
Yea, our perceptions of the past are always evolving and changing which, build up over time and are orchestrated through the "present moment" (just as the events of the past were orchestrated as such). So how could we say the past is static and preordained, when our perception of it doesn't even remain constant? Unless of course, the whole thing is predicated upon "free will."
Freewill is a big problem. If we have freewill the current scientific model is wrong, for the universe is not causally closed as science assumes. Also it would mean that consciousness is causal which, unless you believe that consciousness is material, is in direct conflict with science.
Yet if we do not have freewill we have to scrap our legal system, and will have a hard time explaining feelings of guilt. One might also ask how come we are never taken by surprise by what we do?
If consciousness is not causal then we must assume that we can tell the future. Otherwise there would be no explanation for how we can know that we've decided to do something tomorrow and actually do it when the time comes.
It's a logical minefield.
freedom is different then free will. if theres a will there is a purpose. True freedom has no purpose since theres no will for the purpose. It's free!
Bernardo
Dec6-03, 10:53 AM
I'd like a little feedback on an analogy for this topic.
There is a couple long married and happy. The husband loves peanut butter sandwiches. The wife cares for her husband.
One night she knows he will be home late, and he's always hungry when he gets home so she makes a peanut butter sandwich for him and leaves it on the table, knowing he will eat it.
The husband walks in, sees the snack and eats it.
Did the wife preordain this, or did he choose freely - I wonder if both can't exist together.
Originally posted by Bernardo
I'd like a little feedback on an analogy for this topic.
There is a couple long married and happy. The husband loves peanut butter sandwiches. The wife cares for her husband.
One night she knows he will be home late, and he's always hungry when he gets home so she makes a peanut butter sandwich for him and leaves it on the table, knowing he will eat it.
The husband walks in, sees the snack and eats it.
Did the wife preordain this, or did he choose freely - I wonder if both can't exist together.
This is where my "limiting factors" come into play. In an old thread on free will vs. determinism, I set up a whole analogy about being on a path, and then coming to a fork in the road. If we are predestined, then there really are not forks in the road, even if a mirage tells us that there are. If we have free will, then there are forks in road, but there are often boulders or cacti or animals, which serve as limiting factors in our decisions.
In your case, the limiting factor on his free will to follow any path he wants at this particular fork in the road, is the presence of a way to satisfy his hunger (his hunger being a boulder in the path toward avoiding the sandwhich).
In the end, you still can't tell whether he was predestined, since the other possible roads (and limiting factors therein) could have been part of a mirage, and he could be following the only path that really exists.
Bernardo
Dec6-03, 12:29 PM
In an old thread on free will vs. determinism, I set up a whole analogy about being on a path, and then coming to a fork in the road. If we are predestined, then there really are not forks in the road, even if a mirage tells us that there are.
The whole idea of predestiny implies a supreme being. (Does it to you?)
It does to me but I'm sure you know that about me by now
anyway
This being having established our lives for us & predestined them, would also know us incredibly well. This being would need to be eternal, outside the restraints of time, in order to know everything about time.
Even though our lives are set -we exsist at a level far below Him and must truge through time one second after the other. Because we don't know what's coming our free will guides us.
I do agree with you, my limiting factors would have to be our own inferiority or lack of knowlegde. We have no way of knowing what has been determined - everything seems like our own choice.
I'm rambling, but this is a hard one to grasp the more you think on it.
Originally posted by Bernardo
The whole idea of predestiny implies a supreme being. (Does it to you?)
It does to me but I'm sure you know that about me by now
No, I didn't know this, and I can't say that I completely agree. Sure, most (maybe even all) models of predestination have to do with a Supreme being; however, to look at it scientifically, the question of what predestines us can become irrelevant, and we can just say that it is another part of nature (like gravity or electromagnetism - which, btw, also imply a Supreme Being to some people).
anyway
This being having established our lives for us & predestined them, would also know us incredibly well. This being would need to be eternal, outside the restraints of time, in order to know everything about time.
Time is not a restraint, time is a fact of life. If the being is outside of time, then He can't do anything, because it takes time to do something [;)].
Even though our lives are set -we exsist at a level far below Him and must truge through time one second after the other. Because we don't know what's coming our free will guides us.
Wait a minute, this paragraph looks somewhat contradictory. Are we "set" (by this Supreme Being) or do we have free will to "guide us"?
I'm rambling, but this is a hard one to grasp the more you think on it.
Indeed. Which is why it was not an unwelcome surprise for me when I discovered that it was unanswerable.
Iacchus32
Dec6-03, 09:13 PM
Originally posted by Bernardo
This being having established our lives for us & predestined them, would also know us incredibly well. This being would need to be eternal, outside the restraints of time, in order to know everything about time. What is time, but a mere shadow that follows us around to remind us of our mortality? Indeed, we can't live in the past, nor can we live in the future. In fact all we have is the Eternal Now which, is Ever-Present and Ever-Lasting!
Hence it would seem that the same criteria which is needed to establish the existence of a Creator, is also necessary for us to govern our own affairs. Hmm ...
So what is time, compared against the backdrop of Eternity?
full-time-climb
Dec6-03, 11:52 PM
Could "free will" operate like a CD rom. There are many possible outcomes. We just get to choose one combination of events.
John.
but after i drink the cup of coffee cant i still drink the cup of tea?
wont i still have free will?
n with that free will i am fooled into thinking i actually have free will when the truth is it is predestined. so itz like a chicken and egg ...it goes on in a circle...
so i agree that the best ans to this question is no ans at all
Bernardo
Dec7-03, 10:10 AM
so itz like a chicken and egg
To me the question what came first the chicken or the egg - I like to say, "the chicken in the egg". I believe that somehow both exsist together even though this fries my mind when examined.
I think that of the two though, only free will can be observed and predestination needs to be believed.
free will is only predestined if your fooled in to predestination. just like if your always looking ahead to see what to do next your will is predestined, or if your always looking at the past at what you didn't do your will is predestined. Free will is the space in between where there is no reason for the reason. Predestination doesn't even enter the picture.
Iacchus32
Dec7-03, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by Evil
but after i drink the cup of coffee cant i still drink the cup of tea?
wont i still have free will?
n with that free will i am fooled into thinking i actually have free will when the truth is it is predestined. so itz like a chicken and egg ...it goes on in a circle...
so i agree that the best ans to this question is no ans at all And yet if there was nothing to chose there would be no change, and there would be no past, because there would be nothing to record. So, at what point do things initiate and have their beginning? In the moment! [;)]
Which is to say, everything begins in the moment, and begins with a choice (i.e., to change from the static past).
nah, the egg came first. the egg has to exist before the chicken. The chicken starts off as egg yolk and egg white. until it reaches the time it becomes the chicken. Can't call humans sprem can we? if so then many die by us. Murders!!
Bernardo
Dec7-03, 08:43 PM
The movie 'Matrix Reloaded' has a scene with Neo & the Oracle. She offers him a candy
neo. "You already know if I'm going to take it don't you. So what's the point?" (Not a direct quote a paraphrase)
Oracle. "The choice has already been made, you just need to understand why."
I just wanted to throw this out there and see if there are any comments on it.
Originally posted by Bernardo
The movie 'Matrix Reloaded' has a scene with Neo & the Oracle. She offers him a candy
neo. "You already know if I'm going to take it don't you. So what's the point?" (Not a direct quote a paraphrase)
Oracle. "The choice has already been made, you just need to understand why."
I just wanted to throw this out there and see if there are any comments on it.
I believe the oracle ultimately make a case for determinism. She's saying that you were going to make a choice regardless, and the choice is based on definable things. There is a definable set of events that led to him making the choice he did, and this is what he must understand and accept: that free will is only an illusion.
This leads right into my discussion. How can there be free will? and how can there be a God, if there is yet another one of these dead end threads that lead to nowhere?[6)]
Oh well.. Anyhow, I tend to side with Mentat that there is no winning this argument. In the last thread, I made what I thought was an excellent arugment for determinism based on my ice cream story, and I stole some from Mentat's idea, in the train analogy. Ultimately it leads to an infinite series of balance and counterbalance. for a quick summary"
A man goes to to a Baskin Robins to get some ice cream. He can either get chocolate or vanilla. My point was that he chooses chocolate, but solely based on the events through his life, back to the first time he ever had ice cream, and all other variables taken into account, led to on inevitable choice. When there are only 2 possible solutions to a problem, there is only one way to solve it, and it is that equation which is determinism.
I'm going to see about digging the old thread up so I don't get carpal tunnel retyping all this.
since I can't put threads out of the archives, I'll link it here for all the newer people to read
the previous disccussion on free will vs determinism-
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5439&perpage=12&pagenumber=1
but Iacchus32
u miss my point...what i mean is that everything u do is of free will.just like u can have cooffee then tea or vice versa.so this is where free will comes in. but tis free will is seemingly under the pretext of predestination cos whichever choice u make i can say it is predestined to do so...hence u can say everything is predestined ( this is sort of becoming like mentat's arguement)
Iacchus32
Dec7-03, 11:00 PM
So at what point does the present not become the present? When it's no longer present and becomes the past. At which point you can't change that which has already happened but, you can change that which is happening currently, and that does involve free will.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that the past is based upon the present, and not the other way around ... albeit I will admit that things are predisposed to happen in certain matter, and that these tendencies which, are indicative to determinism, interact with free will as well. Indeed, we can't have things exactly the way we want them which, would be ideal, but that doesn't preclude us from trying!
We also need to consider that we probably don't have the wisdom to know what we really want anyway, in which case it's probably better that we don't always get our way all the time either! [;)]
but i dun beileve in a exisitent present... look at the thread there is no present...there is only the past and the future
prove me wrong by proving there is a present:p
Iacchus32
Dec8-03, 12:47 AM
I exist in the present. And I know that I exist in the present. At no other point do I know that I exist. So it's from this standpoint that I have my being, and from this standpoint that I choose -- and it does involve the act of choosing -- what "seems" fitting for me to do.
If I cease to exist in the present then I cease to exist. Which indeed, is what my consciousness tells me.
hamlet69
Dec8-03, 07:47 AM
to be free in this world requires money because you can choose what you do day to day, but for the poor man who dreams of riches he has to work every day or get lucky, but if he did'nt what to be rich he is free to do what he want even though he can only be free in his mind, is that where we are trully free?
I can walk around in my mind but to travel the world cost's money,
my idea get rid of MONEY,
rambling's from a man who has seen to much , knows to much, and yearns to be a care free child again
Ages ago on another forums I posted this question:
We have a few users here obsessed with power, mental slavery, and the words of dead people. How about we define this mental slavery?
Or better yet, define freedom, and in so doing define its opposite.
A simple question can get us started:
1) Is a man in a cage free, if he has no wish to leave that cage?
It seems to me there are two possible answers:
A) No. In which case we determine freedom based on the physical.
B) Yes. In which case freedom is in the mind.
No answers itself.
In the case of B, move forward...
However, if "yes", that gives us one more question:
2) Is the man in the cage aware of a world beyond his cage?
If the man is aware of all the world beyond his cage, and yet chooses to remain in his cage, is he:
A) Still help captive be fears and such? (which takes us back to 1)
B) Free, because he has veiwed all options and made a choice?
In the case of B, he is free.
However, if the man is not aware of the world beynd his cage, that gives rise to a third question:
3) Is ignorance bliss?
A) Ignorance of other options means slavery.
B) Ignorance of other options does not mean slavery.
Would anyone care to create further logical constructs, or answer the final two questions?
This question, I feel, can be applied to the debate about free will and determinism. Consider all past events as the bars of the cage.
Bernardo
Dec8-03, 09:35 AM
prove me wrong by proving there is a present:p
Go ahead and have a cup of tea or coffee in the future or the past then deny the present.
Without the present you would not be aware of anything. There would be no past and no future. How can you have a future without something for it to come before? How can you have a past without having something it to come before?
Originally posted by Bernardo
prove me wrong by proving there is a present:p
Go ahead and have a cup of tea or coffee in the future or the past then deny the present.
Without the present you would not be aware of anything. There would be no past and no future. How can you have a future without something for it to come before? How can you have a past without having something it to come before?
Simple, the future comes after the past, and the past comes before the future. No other being (other than sentient beings, that is) ever questions that they are not a fundamental entity, but a conglomerate of subatomic processes that are never static...ergo, there needn't be any present for them, merely a continuing movement along the t axis, so why should we need a present?
Hmm. That's a very good way of putting the question. I hadn't thought of it from that angle.
Iacchus32
Dec8-03, 06:27 PM
Why is it that when we open our eyes and become aware that it's always in the present tense?
full-time-climb
Dec8-03, 07:30 PM
A persons mind may exist in the present, but all of the information reaching it is from the past. We can observe nothing in the present as all information that reaches our senses is information about past events.
John
Iacchus32
Dec8-03, 10:08 PM
And which past is that? The past that only exists because it was at one time the present? [;)]
And what if I were somehow capable of erasing my memories of the past, I would still have my "awareness" of the present wouldn't I?
Hmm ... perhaps like a "newborn babe."
Bernardo
Dec8-03, 10:50 PM
Honestly I find debating if the present exists ridiculous.
Such thoughts hold no value or benefit to life. They do no advance our understanding of anything. Debates on topics like this are like a washing machine - they only spin and squeak.
Iacchus32
Dec8-03, 11:26 PM
What is it about the quality of consciousness? And why is it that we can only experience it in the present? And why does our "identity" seem to be associated with it? Indeed, without an identity there would be "no choice" now would there?
Doesn't the fact that you're conscious mean anything to you?
Oh and by the way, if you happen to be looking for God, this is the only place you will find Him, in The Present.
full-time-climb
Dec9-03, 02:41 AM
Could someone explain to me how we can experience a "present" event?
I don't think is is phyisically possible. All the information coming in arrives after the event has occured. We see and experience only the past.
John
Bernardo
Dec9-03, 03:20 AM
What is it about the quality of consciousness? And why is it that we can only experience it in the present? And why does our "identity" seem to be associated with it? Indeed, without an identity there would be "no choice" now would there?
I'm not sure if this post is in response to my voice of frustration with this debate but I'll clear up my view; There can be no denying of the present. It's all we have - where we dwell - our own eternity.
I think this debate over 'the present' is a rabbit trail away from the question originaly asked, So... Can anyone show proof that free will exists? That we are not merely directed by past events?
Oh and by the way, if you happen to be looking for God, this is the only place you will find Him, in The Present.
I agree.
Back to freewill. I thought this might be interesting.
“First, there is the gap of rational decision making, where you try to make up your mind what you are going to do. Here ths gap is between the reasons for making up your mind, and the actual decision that you make. Secondly, there is a gap between the decision and the action. Just as the reasons for the decision were not causally sufficient to produce the decision, so the decision is not causally sufficient to produce the action. There comes the point, after you have made up your mind, when you actually have to do it. And once again, you cannot sit back and let the decision cause the action, any more than you can sit back and let the reasons cause the decision…There is a third gap that arises for actions and activities extended in time, a gap between the initiation of the action and its continuation to completion… Even once you hace started you cannot let the causes operate by themselves; you have to make a continuous voluntary effort to keep going with the action or activity to its completion.” (Searle)
The first gap that Searle describes is between reasons for decisions, which can be certain combinations of beliefs or desires, preferences or some emotions, and the decision or the intention to be formed. The second and third gap are between the decisions or the intentions to act and the initiation of the intended action as well as the sustained execution and implementation of the intention. Whereas the first gap is between some thoughts (reasons) and another thought (a decision or intention), the second and the third gap are between thoughts (decisions or intentions) and actions (actual voluntary bodily movements). Searle maintains that these gaps are the source from which some traditional philosophical problems, such as ‘the freedom of the will’, arise, and where the mental activities conventionally called ‘volitions’ take place (see Searle 2000). A comprehensive, unifying conception of volition has been proposed and developed in light of recent finding in psychology and neuroscience, which views volitions as special kinds of mental acts or activities by which an agent actively and consciously bridges the gaps in his practical reasoning and intentional action that Searle describes (see Zhu J. forthcoming ‘Understanding volition’ Philosophical Psychology and forthcoming ‘Locating volition’, Consciousness and Cognition)
Zhu J. ‘Reclaiming Volition: An alternative interpretation of Libet’s experiment’ Journal of Consciousness Studies Vol 10 No. 11 p 61.
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Why is it that when we open our eyes and become aware that it's always in the present tense?
A trick that has evolved to keep us focused on current necessities?
Originally posted by full-time-climb
A persons mind may exist in the present, but all of the information reaching it is from the past. We can observe nothing in the present as all information that reaches our senses is information about past events.
John
I'd take that one step further, John, but you're on the right track. Our brains are a part of the rest of reality, therefore they also are "information from the past", and the information reaching our senses takes time to do so, along with the time to process this new information...well, clearly we can see that our own conscious mind is not in "the present".
Originally posted by Bernardo
Honestly I find debating if the present exists ridiculous.
Such thoughts hold no value or benefit to life. They do no advance our understanding of anything. Debates on topics like this are like a washing machine - they only spin and squeak.
Interesting. If there was a present, an actual present, then much of science would be invalidated (since alot of it requires constant travel along the axis of time) and we would also have to wonder how much of our subjective experience (which is really the only thing that produces the illusion of a "present" ITFP) we confuse for truth about objective reality. This question is indeed important to many areas of philosophy...even if it is rather silly, in the face of all the evidence against the existence of a "present" [;)].
Bernardo
Dec9-03, 02:34 PM
Interesting. If there was a present, an actual present, then much of science would be invalidated (since alot of it requires constant travel along the axis of time) and we would also have to wonder how much of our subjective experience (which is really the only thing that produces the illusion of a "present" ITFP) we confuse for truth about objective reality. This question is indeed important to many areas of philosophy...even if it is rather silly, in the face of all the evidence against the existence of a "present" .
I have only one thing to say,
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGG G!!!!! Make it stop, make it stop...........
Iacchus32
Dec9-03, 06:57 PM
But what do we mean when we say the "here and now?" Is this not where time and space intersect? ... And hence The Present?
By the way, even if there was a slight delay in our perception of the present, doesn't mean the present doesn't exist, otherwise there would be "no-thing" to perceive. Yea, if we don't perceive anything of the present, then what is there to act upon, by which we base our lives and hence, free will?
Iacchus32
Dec9-03, 07:30 PM
Originally posted by Bernardo
I think this debate over 'the present' is a rabbit trail away from the question originaly asked, So... Can anyone show proof that free will exists? That we are not merely directed by past events? But it's obvious people are trying to argue against the existence of The Present -- which, if true, says we are merely directed by past events (as suggested above). Therefore, in order to have a place to exercise our "free will," we have to argue in favor of The Present. Because clearly the two are synonymous with each other ... You can't have free will without a present tense to set it in action.
Bernardo
Dec9-03, 11:10 PM
You can't have free will without a present tense to set it in action.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhh - now that's a light bulb.
So to follow this through in my mind,
no present = no free will = predestination.
Our lives are established in the future only to bee seen in the mirror of the past with never an action of our own. We are but observers.
Is this what you nonpresent advicates are saying? I don't buy it. Thought I cannot do this argument justice.
UltraPi1
Dec10-03, 08:40 AM
It would seem many are argueing that there is no free will, because our actions are based on past events? I.E. (A) moves (b) in accordance with the physical laws, and (B) moves (C) under the same rules?
I would argue that our existence is not physical at all.
To those argueing that there is no free will for whatever reason. You must be saying there is a God. For why would a car get made? Or a nose hair trimmer[;)]
If we have free will. Is it based on past events?
I would say - You are here ..... right now in the present making decisions on past and future events. You are free to do as you please within the context of known alternatives. Right now I've got my foot half way out the door on my way to work, and right now I'm finishing with this typing, and now I'm really finshed typing. No wait! I changed my mind - Now I'm finished.
Originally posted by Bernardo
Interesting. If there was a present, an actual present, then much of science would be invalidated (since alot of it requires constant travel along the axis of time) and we would also have to wonder how much of our subjective experience (which is really the only thing that produces the illusion of a "present" ITFP) we confuse for truth about objective reality. This question is indeed important to many areas of philosophy...even if it is rather silly, in the face of all the evidence against the existence of a "present" .
I have only one thing to say,
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGG G!!!!! Make it stop, make it stop...........
Take two Tylenol, put an ice pack over your currently swelling head, and learn nothing more until you've fully recuperated...doctor's orders [6)].
Originally posted by Iacchus32
But what do we mean when we say the "here and now?" Is this not where time and space intersect? ... And hence The Present?
Not at all, if it were the space where space and time intersected then the smallest incriment of time would have to be several milliseconds long...this is not the case.
By the way, even if there was a slight delay in our perception of the present, doesn't mean the present doesn't exist, otherwise there would be "no-thing" to perceive. Yea, if we don't perceive anything of the present, then what is there to act upon, by which we base our lives and hence, free will?
If there is no present moment, then all that has changed is a few people's perception of the Universe as though it existed in "slices" of time.
Originally posted by Bernardo
You can't have free will without a present tense to set it in action.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhh - now that's a light bulb.
So to follow this through in my mind,
no present = no free will = predestination.
Our lives are established in the future only to bee seen in the mirror of the past with never an action of our own. We are but observers.
No, no, no, if there is no present but there is still free will, all that means is that free will is a process (like everything else in the Universe) and that it takes a certain amount of time for it to occur in.
Bernardo
Dec10-03, 04:33 PM
I can accept that there is no infinitely small measurement of time. I realize that time never stops, but I have thought of something.
In another thread on the 'speed of thought' the process on what the velocity and mechanism of thought is debated. It's helped me think of something.
Even though time may pass, we process events in our minds. I believe that is where the present exists. The time it takes to process and evaluate. Even the fact that I brought something from my memory and used it (from the more distant past to the nearer past) means there must be some reference point.
How about the times when 'time flies' or 'stands still'. this isn't due to how time behaves but on how we perceive it. So the present exists in our perception, our intellect and our ability to consider the world around us.
Originally posted by Bernardo
I can accept that there is no infinitely small measurement of time. I realize that time never stops, but I have thought of something.
In another thread on the 'speed of thought' the process on what the velocity and mechanism of thought is debated. It's helped me think of something.
Even though time may pass, we process events in our minds. I believe that is where the present exists. The time it takes to process and evaluate. Even the fact that I brought something from my memory and used it (from the more distant past to the nearer past) means there must be some reference point.
Why? There is a broad area of time (spanning many milliseconds, perhaps even seconds) that can be called a "reference point" of the "present" but that would just be a "specious present" as mentioned by hypnagogue in the thread "there is no present".
How about the times when 'time flies' or 'stands still'. this isn't due to how time behaves but on how we perceive it. So the present exists in our perception, our intellect and our ability to consider the world around us.
Indeed. That's why I say that "the present is an illusion". It exists only in our mind, and is nothing but a biased notion that serves a purpose (that of satisfying current needs now, and long-term needs later).
Iacchus32
Dec10-03, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
If there is no present moment, then all that has changed is a few people's perception of the Universe as though it existed in "slices" of time. I think everything which is alive lives for the moment. Otherwise at what point are we going to know we exist?
Bernardo
Dec10-03, 07:10 PM
Indeed. That's why I say that "the present is an illusion". It exists only in our mind, and is nothing but a biased notion that serves a purpose (that of satisfying current needs now, and long-term needs later).
No it can't be an illusion. Illusions vanish with inspection. They are false. The present, while in our perception, is real. This is where all we are functions. It is where I type this post and you read it, where you feel joy, or get angry, or run the perfect 100m race. The present is where our "rubber meets the road".
So I'm back to my previous statement;
There can be no denying of the present. It's all we have - where we dwell - our own eternity.
Originally posted by Iacchus32
I think everything which is alive lives for the moment. Otherwise at what point are we going to know we exist?
At no point, why must everything exist in "points"? Can not our realization of our own existence exist "smeared" over a certain period of time?
Originally posted by Bernardo
No it can't be an illusion. Illusions vanish with inspection. They are false.
Exactly. After having futher inspected the issue, via this thread, has the present not been shown to be an illusion?
The present, while in our perception, is real. This is where all we are functions. It is where I type this post and you read it, where you feel joy, or get angry, or run the perfect 100m race. The present is where our "rubber meets the road".
And yet it took me many milliseconds (in fact, almost a whole second) to read what you wrote, and then another few seconds to think of exactly how to word the response that you are now reading.
So I'm back to my previous statement;
There can be no denying of the present. It's all we have - where we dwell - our own eternity.
And yet I have denied the present, and have presented logical reason to believe that I'm right. That doesn't mean that I am right, merely that I've presented a case that contradicts yours, and you haven't countered it.
Iacchus32
Dec11-03, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
At no point, why must everything exist in "points"? Can not our realization of our own existence exist "smeared" over a certain period of time? Consider the point where the tape meets the heads on a CD cassette recorder. Granted the medium (tape) is continuous but, there is only one point at which the recording can occcur (the heads).
Thus it would suffice to say, our perception is very much like the heads of a tape recorder.
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Consider the point where the tape meets the heads on a CD cassette recorder. Granted the medium (tape) is continuous but, there is only one point at which the recording can occcur (the heads).
Thus it would suffice to say, our perception is very much like the heads of a tape recorder.
There are a range of points at which the tape meets the head. We have no way of constructing 'one point'. In fact there may be no such thing as one point.
Bernardo
Dec12-03, 08:45 AM
Originally posted by Mentat
Interesting. If there was a present, an actual present, then much of science would be invalidated (since alot of it requires constant travel along the axis of time)
If there is no present then I wonder what exactly is 'traveling' along this axis?
Truthfully though, I can honestly see your point. Everything we process in our mind is already gone. I can't argue against this because it is factual.
But.....
I also believe there comes a time (pardon my use of this word) when pure analytical descriptions of the world don't do the everyday experience of our world justice because simply walking to the video store or ordering pizza contains a present. "What's up?" is a phrase we use all the time to inquire about the present experience someone is having. Human social conduct is rooted in the application of a very real present tense.
While your argument is very valid, I also believe for all practical purposes - the present cannot be denied.
Is the argument here basically about whether time is a continuum or a series of 'instants'?
If it is a series of instants then there is a present instant. But if it is a continuum then there isn't a present instant, there is just a subjective 'quantisation' of an unquantised variable.
Is that the underlying issue?
Originally posted by Bernardo
If there is no present then I wonder what exactly is 'traveling' along this axis?
Everything is, but - as per Relativity theory - not all at the same speeds. Therefore, the present must be smeared out over long periods of time, and must therefore not really exist in the sense that we usually think of it. At the same time, there could be a smallest incriment of time, but this would probably be at the Planck scale - at which point a second would seem like an eternity.
But.....
I also believe there comes a time (pardon my use of this word) when pure analytical descriptions of the world don't do the everyday experience of our world justice because simply walking to the video store or ordering pizza contains a present. "What's up?" is a phrase we use all the time to inquire about the present experience someone is having. Human social conduct is rooted in the application of a very real present tense.
While your argument is very valid, I also believe for all practical purposes - the present cannot be denied.
Remember my response to Iacchus, when he asked why it is that we are always aware of a "present tense"? I said it is probably an evolutionary "trick" that forces us to pay more attention to current necessities than to far-off goals. Even without the existence of a "present" (the kind that the specious present tricks us into believing in) there is still a distinct difference between "current" or "recent" and "far-off" or "future".
Originally posted by Canute
Is the argument here basically about whether time is a continuum or a series of 'instants'?
Not exactly. It's more about whether the "specious present" says anything about reality as a whole. IOW, is there a point in time where I thought about pizza, or is that an event smeared out over time?
Bernardo
Dec12-03, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
. . .is there a point in time where I thought about pizza, or is that an event smeared out over time?
Of course there is, it's called the present.
Would the chain of events that took place happen without that thought? The origin of this particular 'event chain' occurred on it's own. How can a series of events begin without something to begin with?
The thought, "I want pizza", was initiated by your bodies examination of it's current condition of hunger. Your mind is able to
-harness this incoming information (present condition),
-knowledge from the past (where you got good pizza before)
-manipulate the current environment (phone the order in)
-to produce a satisfying result in the future (it arrives).
All this by using the present as a pivot point.
Iacchus32
Dec12-03, 07:14 PM
Originally posted by Canute
There are a range of points at which the tape meets the head. We have no way of constructing 'one point'. In fact there may be no such thing as one point. This is merly an argument for what is "relative." For example, if you took the point of a needle and magnified it 100,000 times under an electron microscope, it would certainly look different than the point of the needle you just pierced your hand with via the aid of the naked eye.
So, at what point does the point become a point? Obviously when it serves its "effective purpose" of being a point.
Originally posted by Canute
Freewill is a big problem. If we have freewill the current scientific model is wrong, for the universe is not causally closed as science assumes. Also it would mean that consciousness is causal which, unless you believe that consciousness is material, is in direct conflict with science.
Yet if we do not have freewill we have to scrap our legal system, and will have a hard time explaining feelings of guilt. One might also ask how come we are never taken by surprise by what we do?
If consciousness is not causal then we must assume that we can tell the future. Otherwise there would be no explanation for how we can know that we've decided to do something tomorrow and actually do it when the time comes.
It's a logical minefield.
On feelings of guilt. This is a natural biochemical response to actions which may be beyond our control. It's much the same way that we have remorse and fear over death. It's a part of our natural process, but we still experience feelings of regret over it. Just because something is inheirent, doesn't automatically preclude emotional response over it.
OK first to the perception of "the present". We must ultimately concede that the term "present" is a subjective word, and not objective. For further clarification I'd refer to the ancient greek story abou the rabbit and the tortoise. (demacules was it?) If the turle started first, but the rabbit was faster, the rabbit would never win the race because the distance between the 2 would be broken down into halfs in infinite increments, so the rabbit would never win, if we broke time down in the same way( I may be off on the details, but you get the point.) So this has all been discusses and agreed upon.
As to free will- It does not exist. It is an illusion. tea or coffee. He chose coffee because he had coffee that morning, and because he's had coffee 16 times over the past 3 weeks, and had tea only once. And because he prefers the taste of coffee. And because his wife hates it when he drinks tea. And because coffee is first on the menu, and because tea gives him gas.. and on, and on and on.
People try to equate the inequities in the decision making process with free will, when in actuality, it merely comes down to things that we haven't taken the trouble or time to guage yet. The gaps between the thought process and the actual choice do not actually exist. There is a process which leads us to sucessfully make a choice from all our selections. It's based on our past actions, beliefs, experiences, thoughts, and actions. He would have inevitably chosen coffee. To know all thought processes leading up to this decision is to know and predict the future. It's like gambling without the risk.
Consider this: Everything that we are is casuality. Free will claims to be a drop of randomness amongst a see of order. Let's consider this. We as human beings have evolved through a natural process of ordered selection. Our physical makeup. Including our brains. Our thought processes, our behaviors, our decisions, all have roots in basic human instinct. At the root of it is ID EGO, and SUPEREGO, controlling our lives, our minds, our choices. Sure, we have a higher thought process that gives us the illusion that we are making free choices. But not before the old ID, EGO, And super ego gives it first level clearance. And those are subconcious processes beyond our control. We don't even percieve of them most times. Like the fight or flight response. The survival instinct. That's why so many find it so difficult to sacrifice thier lives. It's the battle between the subconcious self preservation, and the higher brain function telling us that we have to kill ourselves to save many more lives, etc. And the same applies to our normal every day decisions. Like the study on how we have already made a decision a split second before we react to that decsion. It's all been decided, we just haven't gotten the update yet. It's all a matter of perception. And free will is a matter of perception of reality, and our understanding of the process. We percieve our decisions as something that isn't static because we lack the undestanding of all the variables that go into the making of each decision. If we did, we'd see that there is actually order in what we percieve as chaos
Or at least that's how I see it[:D]
Iacchus32
Dec13-03, 06:26 AM
Originally posted by Mentat
Not exactly. It's more about whether the "specious present" says anything about reality as a whole. IOW, is there a point in time where I thought about pizza, or is that an event smeared out over time. Just as with digitized music, each "selected interval" (hence point) becoms an "encoded event" which, could be strung out in a whole series of encoded events to achieve this smearing effect if you will. Which, isn't to say that each event cannot be pinpointed (relatively speaking) somewhere along the way. [:)]
Originally posted by Zantra
On feelings of guilt. This is a natural biochemical response to actions which may be beyond our control. It's much the same way that we have remorse and fear over death. It's a part of our natural process, but we still experience feelings of regret over it. Just because something is inheirent, doesn't automatically preclude emotional response over it.
Biochemically speaking, how does one distinguish between an act that leads to guilt and an act that doesn't. Are you saying the difference is entirely biochemical, and that our conscious appraisal of these acts are irrelevant? Are you saying we could invent anti-guilt pills? Someone's going to make a fortune.
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Just as with digitized music, each "selected interval" (hence point) becoms an "encoded event" which, could be strung out in a whole series of encoded events to achieve this smearing effect if you will. Which, isn't to say that each event cannot be pinpointed (relatively speaking) somewhere along the way. [:)]
Try using real music, it's a lot harder to make this argument.
Originally posted by Bernardo
Of course there is, it's called the present.
But it doesn't exist...unless it's the many milliseconds it takes for a complete thought to be perceived, in which case photons must be moving across time faster than "the present" is...but that means they're in the future!
Would the chain of events that took place happen without that thought? The origin of this particular 'event chain' occurred on it's own. How can a series of events begin without something to begin with?
Well, it began with something, but that "something" is probably the first time I ate pizza.
The thought, "I want pizza", was initiated by your bodies examination of it's current condition of hunger. Your mind is able to
-harness this incoming information (present condition),
But this (harnessing the information) is a process not an event.
All this by using the present as a pivot point.
How did you get this conclusion from those series of events? There were obviously many "pivot points", and all of these "points" were actually processes, which means there is still no noticable or definable point called "the present".
Originally posted by Zantra
As to free will- It does not exist. It is an illusion. tea or coffee. He chose coffee because he had coffee that morning, and because he's had coffee 16 times over the past 3 weeks, and had tea only once. And because he prefers the taste of coffee. And because his wife hates it when he drinks tea. And because coffee is first on the menu, and because tea gives him gas.. and on, and on and on.
Oh, man, Zantra... Do I have to go over all of this again? [:((]
Free will cannot be disproven, and your version of determinism doesn't change that. The fact that limiting factors on his decision (that he had had coffee so many times, and didn't care for tea or whatever) existed at all is enough to prove that there is free will. If there were no free will, then he would not choose coffee "because of" anything except for the fact that he was going to choose it. Remember? [;)]
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Just as with digitized music, each "selected interval" (hence point) becoms an "encoded event" which, could be strung out in a whole series of encoded events to achieve this smearing effect if you will. Which, isn't to say that each event cannot be pinpointed (relatively speaking) somewhere along the way. [:)]
So, what are you trying to say?
Bernardo
Dec13-03, 11:00 AM
I will reply to you Mentat but I'm busy for a while.
I'm beginning to think (every time I post) that if we went to school together you'd be coming to take my milk money each day
Originally posted by Bernardo
I will reply to you Mentat but I'm busy for a while.
I'm beginning to think (every time I post) that if we went to school together you'd be coming to take my milk money each day
No, I'm not a bully. I might show you up in class, when your science experiment was scientifically inaccurate, but...well, that's another story [t)].
Iacchus32
Dec13-03, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by Canute
Try using real music, it's a lot harder to make this argument. Do you mean listening to it live, and in "the moment," without the benefit of any playback equipment? What's the difference? All the conductor need do is signal the queue, if he wants the orchestra to pause during the middle of a performance. It may not be as convenient as pushing buttons on your stereo, but the effect is still the same. Whereas if he wants to resume, all he need do is signal the queue.
No that's not it. The point is that to use digitised music as a mataphor for time passing is confusing. Digitised music is quantised into instants. There's no reason to suppose that real undigitised music, or time, is like this.
Iacchus32
Dec13-03, 07:13 PM
Originally posted by Canute
No that's not it. The point is that to use digitised music as a mataphor for time passing is confusing. Digitised music is quantised into instants. There's no reason to suppose that real undigitised music, or time, is like this. And yet for all intents and purposes it sounds the same, except perhaps with more clarity than old "analog style" recordings, suggesting the technique, although artificial, must be the closest "approximation" to what actually occurs in real time. Meaning, that's the reason why it works and why it works so well.
While indeed, everytime we become aware -- "in the moment" -- we are in effect "resampling" (updating) all of the information which enters through our perception.
Almost sounds like "updating" the frames in a motion picture doesn't it? Oh, and how do we know that this "awareness function" of the brain doesn't "oscillate" at a certain frequency? i.e., at so many "thought-frames per second?" Why shouldn't it? Everything else in nature oscillates.
Originally posted by Mentat
Oh, man, Zantra... Do I have to go over all of this again? [:((]
Free will cannot be disproven, and your version of determinism doesn't change that. The fact that limiting factors on his decision (that he had had coffee so many times, and didn't care for tea or whatever) existed at all is enough to prove that there is free will. If there were no free will, then he would not choose coffee "because of" anything except for the fact that he was going to choose it. Remember? [;)]
Oh my GOD. are you serious man? Don't tell me you're going to bogg me down with wordplay again[6)] Ok substitute "because of" with "as a result of", or whatever phrase fits the scenario. He was going to choose the coffee due to the selection process which lead to coffee.
This is a fruitless argument on both sides. It's like I'm saying the universe is infinite and you're saying "show me the end of the universe".
You have to at least concede that if I were correct, and free will was just an illusion created by the complexity of determinism's design, that we would be unable to tell the difference.
Originally posted by Canute
Biochemically speaking, how does one distinguish between an act that leads to guilt and an act that doesn't. Are you saying the difference is entirely biochemical, and that our conscious appraisal of these acts are irrelevant? Are you saying we could invent anti-guilt pills? Someone's going to make a fortune.
You're asking me to attach a logic to emotional response, which is impossible. Do that, and you will be a millionaire. All I'm saying is that we react to something regardless of our ability to control it. I'm saying (if you read my post right after my response to yours) is th at we are contolled by base instincts (ID EGO SUPER EGO) which don't discern between right and wrong. they are only reacting to a situation..
Iacchus32
Dec13-03, 08:34 PM
If the Universe is endless then free will must exist. If the Universe is not endless then it must be pervaded by determinism.
And yet in an endless Universe we can set up boundaries which give us the illusion of determinism, and yet boundaries which are nonetheless breeched, through the capacity of free will.
Originally posted by Zantra
You're asking me to attach a logic to emotional response, which is impossible. Do that, and you will be a millionaire. All I'm saying is that we react to something regardless of our ability to control it. I'm saying (if you read my post right after my response to yours) is th at we are contolled by base instincts (ID EGO SUPER EGO) which don't discern between right and wrong. they are only reacting to a situation.. [/B]
So where do right and wrong come from? My point was that it's very difficult to show that feelings of guilt are entirely biochemical. It's not easy to imagine a chemical compound that encodes for feelings of guilt.
You said to Mentat -
"You have to at least concede that if I were correct, and free will was just an illusion created by the complexity of determinism's design, that we would be unable to tell the difference."
Which is exactly he said to you. Freewill is unprovable. This does not entail that it does not exist, but just that it might not.
Iachus32
And yet for all intents and purposes it sounds the same, except perhaps with more clarity than old "analog style" recordings, suggesting the technique, although artificial, must be the closest "approximation" to what actually occurs in real time. Meaning, that's the reason why it works and why it works so well.
True. All I was saying is that there is no evidence that time or space are quantised. There is therefore no evidence that there is a present 'instant' instead of an arbitrary sampling of a particular sized slice of it, what someone here called our 'specious' present.
As you say, perhaps the mechanism is oscillations in the brain,(roughly as Francis Crick argues) which can be fooled by film frame rates and high speed digital sampling. However that is about our perception, not evidence that time is quantised.
Ya, mentat and I already had this argument eons ago. It's a stalemate. He can't prove free will exists any more than I can prove that it doesn't. No one can. But it's been kinda slow in in philosophy lately. Was just trying to create a debate[;)]
This is a neverending argument, but we still argue it- Why? I guess because it passes the time.. lol. Actually- I argue it. Mentat just points out how futile it is[6)]
To the biochemical stuff. Well basically, I'm saying that we react to situations at a basic level, regardless of thier relevance, guilt or not. That's the premise of it. After the initial response, we then logical sort it out with our higher brain functions, which is based on past experiences, and all the other factors that go into determinism.
There is a saying. Problems cannot be solved at the same level at which they were created- al einstein said this. And this means that we are trying to solve the problem of how we arrive at a particular conclusion, but we are using our own minds to do it. We need a computer much more complexed than the human mind to calculate all the variables involved in the deterministic equation-assuming such an equation exists.[;)]
Iacchus32
Dec14-03, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by Canute
Iachus32
True. All I was saying is that there is no evidence that time or space are quantised. There is therefore no evidence that there is a present 'instant' instead of an arbitrary sampling of a particular sized slice of it, what someone here called our 'specious' present.
As you say, perhaps the mechanism is oscillations in the brain,(roughly as Francis Crick argues) which can be fooled by film frame rates and high speed digital sampling. However that is about our perception, not evidence that time is quantised. No, I don't believe time is "quantised" as such, but rather continuous, of which a "sampling" can be made of any given interval, to which you can also ascribe the notion of "the present": present second, present hour, present day, present year, etc..
However, I prefer to define the present in terms of the continuous sampling of our "conscious attention" (at whatever rate that may occur, or even variable), as it aligns itself to each moment -- and hence experience -- to which it is drawn. In other words it's a matter of being aware of what you experience as you're experiencing it.
While it's to this that I ascribe the notion of free will, where you always seem to "find yourself" in the middle of what you're doing and deciding what to do about it, for instance flipping through the channels on TV and deciding what program to watch ... or, deciding to get up off the couch and get something to eat.
Indeed, it's the very act of making a decision -- which, is transitional -- that makes us most aware.
mikelus
Dec14-03, 08:33 AM
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Oh, and how do we know that this "awareness function" of the brain doesn't "oscillate" at a certain frequency? i.e., at so many "thought-frames per second?" Why shouldn't it? Everything else in nature oscillates. [/B]
with every frequency or sound theres a wave that goes up and below the common zero hz. in so called thought-frames per second the frame with no thought would be the the zero since it would be the beginning and the ending of the thought or sound. A frame that had thought would have an oscillation or a frequency that had a wave of equal porportions on either side of zero. For every thought there's an aspect of truth in it or zero since it came from it and ended in it. so this awarness funtion of the brain I would say doesn't nessasarly have to oscillate at all to be aware since truth is the zero everything from there oscillates a wave from zero.
Iacchus32
Dec14-03, 10:12 AM
Irregardless of whether this oscillation occurs or not, there's still an oscillation (of sorts) between a state of awareness and a state of being less aware which, as I suggested in the previous post, depends upon the switch-over or transition between states, and requires making a "new choice."
Let's say for example we're standing at the refrigerator, with the door wide open and deciding what it is we want to eat. And here we may not even realize that we're standing there, that is until after we make our choice, and decide we want to go into the other room. And we say to ourselves, "Hey what are we doing here, my legs are not moving," as our attention shifts from the food and we begin walking into the other room.
Sorry for the length. I'm seriously into this subject.
Originally posted by Zantra
Ya, mentat and I already had this argument eons ago. It's a stalemate. He can't prove free will exists any more than I can prove that it doesn't. No one can. But it's been kinda slow in in philosophy lately. Was just trying to create a debate[;)]
This is a neverending argument, but we still argue it- Why? I guess because it passes the time.. lol. Actually- I argue it. Mentat just points out how futile it is[6)]
Great stuff. I thought that you thought that you could prove that you could prove something, even though you were trying to prove that you weren't free to make up your own mind on whether you agreed with what you were trying to prove or not. My mistake. [:D]
I'm not quite certain yet that we can't work out the freewill thing. But we probably have to come at it from a different angle. Great minds have explored all the technicalities of this issue for millenia, and they haven't got anywhere from a 'Western' perspective.
Maybe we're stuck in the wrong paradigm, looking at it in the wrong way, asking the wrong questions. Maybe the world is stranger than we think it is, and we're just not imaginative enough to see it for what it really is. After all we only get a bunch of electrochemical patterns in our brains, we have to reconstruct the world from those.
Bad mistakes must be possible. Mistakes that are life threatening, like a belief that tigers are harmless, would soon be weeded out by evolutionary selection. But what about mistakes that aren't life threatening, or those that actually make us more likely to reproduce?
We could have errors in our conception of the world that go back to the dawn of time when you think about it seriously, we just wouldn't know. As long as they promoted our physical survival they would persist forever in our species as evolving memes. Imagining we have freewill may be one of these persistent errors.
But then the whole notion of a 'real' phenemenal world may be a persistent error. After all this is what Plato and other idealists have been arguing for at least three thousand years. If we can't be certain that the phenomenal world really exists then proving freewill is the least of our problems.
There doesn't seem to be any way through this inevitable muddle. This is why I'm sure that there must be a different way of thinking about it.
The trouble with this subject is that it leads all over the place. For instance the existence of freewill implies that consciousness is causal, and causal consciousness combined with freewill is a definite scientific no-no. So the fundamental mechanisms of cause and effect is the part of the issue as well.
The question of freewill, as you probably know already, raises other difficult questions and eventually calls into question our whole idea of our existence as 'selves' in the 'world'.
“Very few seek knowledge in this world. Mortal or immortal, few really ask. On the contrary, they try to wring from the unknown the answers they have already shaped in their own minds – justifications, explanations, forms of consolation without which they can’t go on. To really ask is to open the door to the whirlwind. The answer may annihilate the question and the questionner.” (The Vampire Marius, Ann Rice, The Vampire Lestat)
To the biochemical stuff. Well basically, I'm saying that we react to situations at a basic level, regardless of thier relevance, guilt or not. That's the premise of it. After the initial response, we then logical sort it out with our higher brain functions, which is based on past experiences, and all the other factors that go into determinism.
I can read that two ways. Are you saying that we act/react and then afterwards create a narrative to explain what happened to ourselves, are are you saying that all this is an entirely physical process?
There is a saying. Problems cannot be solved at the same level at which they were created- al einstein said this. And this means that we are trying to solve the problem of how we arrive at a particular conclusion, but we are using our own minds to do it.
I'm certain that you're right. We must see beyond the shadows.
We need a computer much more complexed than the human mind to calculate all the variables involved in the deterministic equation-assuming such an equation exists.[;)] [/B]
What makes you say that? I would have thought that we need to simplify the problem, not make it complicated to the point where we need a machine to do it for us.
As far as freewill goes my guess is that any such machine would only ever be able to tell us what we'd told it.
Be funny if we built one and, after many long years of programming and waiting, it refused to cooperate or answer any questions. [*(]
Originally posted by Zantra
Oh my GOD. are you serious man? Don't tell me you're going to bogg me down with wordplay again[6)] Ok substitute "because of" with "as a result of", or whatever phrase fits the scenario. He was going to choose the coffee due to the selection process which lead to coffee.
This is a fruitless argument on both sides. It's like I'm saying the universe is infinite and you're saying "show me the end of the universe".
You have to at least concede that if I were correct, and free will was just an illusion created by the complexity of determinism's design, that we would be unable to tell the difference.
Yes, that's what we conceded together some time ago, my friend. However, to the point of substituting the term "because of", it becomes irrelevant which term you use, so long as you believe that Event X is a limiting factor...since limiting factors are only such if they are "limiting" the otherwise free will of the individual.
No, you can't prove one or the other (I've been saying that since PF2), but I can prove that determinism (whatever version you may use) is just a spin-off of free will, and is thus at odds with (and not a justification of) predestination.
Originally posted by Canute
I'm not quite certain yet that we can't work out the freewill thing. But we probably have to come at it from a different angle. Great minds have explored all the technicalities of this issue for millenia, and they haven't got anywhere from a 'Western' perspective.
Maybe we're stuck in the wrong paradigm, looking at it in the wrong way, asking the wrong questions. Maybe the world is stranger than we think it is, and we're just not imaginative enough to see it for what it really is. After all we only get a bunch of electrochemical patterns in our brains, we have to reconstruct the world from those.
You know. I very much want to agree with you, since I never like to say "this or that is completely unprovable/unknowable/undecidable". However, this issue is indeed undecidable. Every attempt to prove one further validates the other, and thus you get nowhere, no matter how much time or effort you spend on it. It's not a limit of our minds, it's a limit on the issue...it is limited in that neither can be proven without proving the other to just as great an extent.
Originally posted by Mentat
You know. I very much want to agree with you, since I never like to say "this or that is completely unprovable/unknowable/undecidable". However, this issue is indeed undecidable. Every attempt to prove one further validates the other, and thus you get nowhere, no matter how much time or effort you spend on it. It's not a limit of our minds, it's a limit on the issue...it is limited in that neither can be proven without proving the other to just as great an extent.
I believe you're right. But don't forget that it is perfectly possible to know things we cannot prove. We know that from mathematics.
Originally posted by Canute
I believe you're right. But don't forget that it is perfectly possible to know things we cannot prove. We know that from mathematics.
Actually (since this is the Philosophy Forum), everything we know, minus a few rare exceptions, is something we cannot prove [;)].
Bernardo
Dec16-03, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
Actually (since this is the Philosophy Forum), everything we know, minus a few rare exceptions, is something we cannot prove [;)].
This is why I will never make a great philosopher, even though it's something I enjoy and is good 'exercise'. I like things that can be proven.
I find I have to get over my first impression of 'well that's an insane idea' to actually mill it over in my mind and try to understand it. Actually not just understand it but in my mind defend my own beliefs and thought patterns in the face of it, instead of just dismissing it.
This is another aspect of free will. Our ability to choose to use or not use our minds, to believe by disregarding everything else or to believe with the realization of everything else. But no matter what we do 'everything else' is still out there isn't it.
But is our approach to this determined for us at birth genetically or learned socially? There are examples of people stepping outside their culture to embrace new ideas as well as liberals casting aside new ideas because they just don't agree.
Originally posted by Mentat
Actually (since this is the Philosophy Forum), everything we know, minus a few rare exceptions, is something we cannot prove [;)].
Exactly. Yet there are things that we can know despite this.
I have two rather seperate points to make and they are semi-contradictory (partly contradictory but from another point of view they are more supplementary)... So bear with me, heh.
1) Direction by past events and predistination/predetermination of everything in no way negate free will. Predistination is more like being able to predict the future accurately than it is like controlling the future. If we are predistined, then we are predestined to make certain choices. However, we still do MAKE the choices, it is just already determined what we will choose.
For instance, if there is no random (contrary to what modern physics says) and the positions and velocities of particles at the big bang determine all the future in accordance with the laws of physics, our thoughts and actions are determined by the physics of the electrons and protein molecules in our brains. Our thought processes and choices occur based on those unchangable laws of physics, they are already determined. However, they are still choices and thought processes, we still have free will. Hopefully most of you understand what I'm trying to say, it is rather hard to explain.
2) "not just directed by past events". I'm afraid the proof goes in the opposite direction, my friend. Our thought processes and basis for decisions are learned through past events. The decisions we make are based on past events. Even your post asking for proof only occured because of a specific string of past events that had the result of you thinking about this stuff at exactly the time you did and the result of you choosing to post it and doing so. If we aren't directed by past events, what are we directed by? The concept of "free will" is a bit fuzzy- it obviously means, basicly, that we make our own decisions, but it isn't as clear as that. It seems to have come to imply that we make a decision independent of external stimuli- I ask you what such a decision would be based on? If we cannot rely on external stimuli for information to make the decision, we cannot rely on internal stimuli (memory, etc) either, since all interior content is learned from exterior things. So free will by your definition is apperently the same thing as random- a choice devoid of any reasons. I fail to see why you would think this was how we operate or why you would want it to be so?
To make this a bit clearer, let me go on a bit more. All influences on our minds are external- internal influences develop from external influences (even instincts develop from external influences in our ancestors). All external influences are past events- influences from the future such as "If I don't do this, this thing will happen." are developed by past influences that lead us to that conclusion. So all influences on our minds are, at their core, past external influences. Therefore to be "not just directed by past events" we must make a decision based on nothing we have in our minds. If we make a decision with no parameters, constraints, considerations, etc, the decision is truly random. Either we make decisions based on no information at all, illogicly and randomly, or we are ENTIRELY directed by past events. Free will does not mean freedom from past influences, it means using those past influences to come up with an action and taking it. This is what the brain does, whether we have fates and destinies or not. Even if things are preordained, our brain works like this, so we still have free will. :)
Iacchus32
Dec17-03, 01:27 AM
Yes, what's the point in having a brain if we don't utilize it?
While it also brings up the notion of an Omnipresent, Omniscient Being, who knows both our future and, at the same time allows us the capacity of free will.
Sikz
Good points but...
Originally posted by Sikz
1) Direction by past events and predistination/predetermination of everything in no way negate free will. Predistination is more like being able to predict the future accurately than it is like controlling the future.
My prediction is that I'm going to write to to disagree with you about....now. Wow. I did. My brain states can tell the future of my brain states.
I get what you're saying but how do you explain knowing what you're going to do next?
2) "not just directed by past events". I'm afraid the proof goes in the opposite direction, my friend. Our thought processes and basis for decisions are learned through past events.
Thats' cheating. 'Learned' is not the same as 'directed', and neither of them is quite the same as strictly physically determined.
The decisions we make are based on past events. Even your post asking for proof only occured because of a specific string of past events that had the result of you thinking about this stuff at exactly the time you did and the result of you choosing to post it and doing so.
What do you mean here by 'choosing to post it'?
If we cannot rely on external stimuli for information to make the decision, we cannot rely on internal stimuli (memory, etc) either, since all interior content is learned from exterior things.
That's impossible to prove and strongly disputed by many.
To make this a bit clearer, let me go on a bit more. All influences on our minds are external-
Perhaps, but it's a conjecture.
If we make a decision with no parameters, constraints, considerations, etc, the decision is truly random. Either we make decisions based on no information at all, illogicly and randomly, or we are ENTIRELY directed by past events.
Why does it have to be one or the other?
Free will does not mean freedom from past influences, it means using those past influences to come up with an action and taking it.
What do you mean by 'using those influences', and 'come up with' and 'taking it'.
Originally posted by Bernardo
This is why I will never make a great philosopher, even though it's something I enjoy and is good 'exercise'. I like things that can be proven.
Philosophy was spawned to challenge all of the things that you will take for granted in your life. You believe that some things can be proven, and that we have the free will to attempt such proof, therefore philosophy challenges that nothing can be proven and that we may be predestined.
Originally posted by Mentat
No, you can't prove one or the other (I've been saying that since PF2), but I can prove that determinism (whatever version you may use) is just a spin-off of free will, and is thus at odds with (and not a justification of) predestination.
I'd be interested to hear that spin off theory. I see what you're saying though. It's all based on perception. If determinism exists, it's so complexed that it has the APPPEARANCE of free will. It's Almost Matrix-esque in nature. We are living inside a dream world, etc.
Originally posted by Iacchus32
If the Universe is endless then free will must exist. If the Universe is not endless then it must be pervaded by determinism.
And yet in an endless Universe we can set up boundaries which give us the illusion of determinism, and yet boundaries which are nonetheless breeched, through the capacity of free will.
And we can't prove the universe is endless either, can we?(at least not physically)[a)]. And if determinism is true, then the complexities are so intricate that we PERCIEVE it as free will, because of how we view things. Peception is a tricky thing, n'est-ce pas?
Dou you guys really think that god would say: I told you so?[:))]
Great stuff. I thought that you thought that you could prove that you could prove something, even though you were trying to prove that you weren't free to make up your own mind on whether you agreed with what you were trying to prove or not. My mistake. [:D]
If I could, I wouldn't be here on pf, I'd be busy publish my new book and picking up my new ferarri;). But I just take one side of the endless debate and give it my all.
I'm not quite certain yet that we can't work out the freewill thing. But we probably have to come at it from a different angle. Great minds have explored all the technicalities of this issue for millenia, and they haven't got anywhere from a 'Western' perspective.
Maybe we're stuck in the wrong paradigm, looking at it in the wrong way, asking the wrong questions. Maybe the world is stranger than we think it is, and we're just not imaginative enough to see it for what it really is. After all we only get a bunch of electrochemical patterns in our brains, we have to reconstruct the world from those.
Bad mistakes must be possible. Mistakes that are life threatening, like a belief that tigers are harmless, would soon be weeded out by evolutionary selection. But what about mistakes that aren't life threatening, or those that actually make us more likely to reproduce?
We could have errors in our conception of the world that go back to the dawn of time when you think about it seriously, we just wouldn't know. As long as they promoted our physical survival they would persist forever in our species as evolving memes. Imagining we have freewill may be one of these persistent errors.
But then the whole notion of a 'real' phenemenal world may be a persistent error. After all this is what Plato and other idealists have been arguing for at least three thousand years. If we can't be certain that the phenomenal world really exists then proving freewill is the least of our problems.
There doesn't seem to be any way through this inevitable muddle. This is why I'm sure that there must be a different way of thinking about it.
The trouble with this subject is that it leads all over the place. For instance the existence of freewill implies that consciousness is causal, and causal consciousness combined with freewill is a definite scientific no-no. So the fundamental mechanisms of cause and effect is the part of the issue as well.
The question of freewill, as you probably know already, raises other difficult questions and eventually calls into question our whole idea of our existence as 'selves' in the 'world'.
“Very few seek knowledge in this world. Mortal or immortal, few really ask. On the contrary, they try to wring from the unknown the answers they have already shaped in their own minds – justifications, explanations, forms of consolation without which they can’t go on. To really ask is to open the door to the whirlwind. The answer may annihilate the question and the questionner.” (The Vampire Marius, Ann Rice, The Vampire Lestat) [/QUOTE]
Good luck with that. As mentat alluded, every argument for one side evoke an equal argument from the other side- each answer brings 2 more.
I can read that two ways. Are you saying that we act/react and then afterwards create a narrative to explain what happened to ourselves, are are you saying that all this is an entirely physical process?
It's a 2 level process. Basic reactions are processed by our based emotions first, then passed on to our higher functions of reasoning and logic. But our higher functioning and thought processes are based on our BASIC instincts, so in a sense it is tainted. Like touching a hot stove. We do it once and don't do it again. We may see a hot stove, and our higher functions will say "it's not logical to subject yourself to pain as it would serve no purpose". But below that, is the basic instict going "no, hot, pain, bad", and our higher brain functions are interpreting that as the above inner dialogue. That's a rough outline, but I'm no neurologist, so don't quote me on it.
What makes you say that? I would have thought that we need to simplify the problem, not make it complicated to the point where we need a machine to do it for us.
As far as freewill goes my guess is that any such machine would only ever be able to tell us what we'd told it.
Be funny if we built one and, after many long years of programming and waiting, it refused to cooperate or answer any questions. [*(]
Ok the point of determinism is that it's a huge equation of everything that exists in which every single variable is known- that's as simple as it gets. I don't think our brains could contain that- do you?
Originally posted by Achy47
Dou you guys really think that god would say: I told you so?[:))]
I saw an ant today. If I picked it up and told it "I told you so ", would I be god?
Iacchus32
Dec18-03, 05:09 AM
Originally posted by Zantra
And we can't prove the universe is endless either, can we?(at least not physically)[a)]. And if determinism is true, then the complexities are so intricate that we PERCIEVE it as free will, because of how we view things. Peception is a tricky thing, n'est-ce pas? Perhaps free will, like consciousness, is an emergent property? ... No doubt, because the two are obviously related, if not one and the same.
Also, don't you think the idea of complexity arises out of the fact that there are so many "choices" available? Whereas if there were "no choice," wouldn't that spell "non-existence?" ... i.e., through determinism everything has a beginning which, must ultimately begin with "zero," right? In which case how could anything proceed beyond that which has already been predetermined, which is "nothing?"
Originally posted by Zantra
Ok the point of determinism is that it's a huge equation of everything that exists in which every single variable is known- that's as simple as it gets. I don't think our brains could contain that- do you? [/B]
I'm not sure what you mean here.
Originally posted by Zantra
I saw an ant today. If I picked it up and told it "I told you so ", would I be god? If you really did tell it so and you were right in every case that you made a prediction (given that the predictions were not trivial) - Hmm - You would fool me.
I was just making a farce in the first post.[:D]
PS. I dont really believe in a god... Just in the existence of higher entities.
Still interesting though. Keep posting.
Originally posted by Zantra
I'd be interested to hear that spin off theory.
Techinically, you've already heard it. You see, both in my "path with forks" analogy and in the applications thereof, I have explained that predestination does not include limiting factors. It has no use for them, since you're going to do one thing, and that is the only "path" that even exists. Now, determinism (no matter which form it takes) always takes into account limiting factors. It says that there is only one path that we will take, but it is not the only path that exists, simply the only one we'll take. Ergo, deternism is free will minus the freedom [:D].
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Perhaps free will, like consciousness, is an emergent property? ... No doubt, because the two are obviously related, if not one and the same.
Consciousness is not an emergent property. It is a process, just like breathing or eating.
Iacchus32
Dec18-03, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
Consciousness is not an emergent property. It is a process, just like breathing or eating. Would you say that a TV picture is an emergent property of a television set?
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Would you say that a TV picture is an emergent property of a television set?
No. A TV picture is a large stream of photons stimulating my CNS in a particular fashion.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.