Does the non-existence of free will change your beliefs?

[Me Myself]

As for consciousness, we really don't know what that is either. Who knows what it can or can't do, or even what it really is. Consciousness itself is a "unique biologic quality" but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Why couldn't free-will-- or as I like to see it, the ability to manipulate the effect probability-- also be a unique capability of living organisms?

Why couldn´t blue have the ability t manipulate probability? and be it a unique capability of things that are blue?

And technically speaking, a tornado could be conscious, and we wouldn´t know either.

 

[Falvlun]

Why couldn´t blue have the ability t manipulate probability? and be it a unique capability of things that are blue?

It's possible, sure.

But I find the concept of consciousness being able to tweak probabilities more likely. We know what blue is-- it's simply how our eyes perceive and our brain interprets different wavelengths of light. It's no different then any other color, so there's no reason why blue would change something but not the other colors as well. It's not unique.

Consciousness, however, is pretty darn unique. And it has something else going for it: It has the ability to be aware of its surroundings. I think that part is crucial. It seems to be able to sense options; it can imagine a future different from the present.

Just because you can think of a silly example to counter my own doesn't somehow make my hypothesis just as silly as yours.

And technically speaking, a tornado could be conscious, and we wouldn´t know either.

True, that doesn't hurt my hypothesis at all. Do note that I don't claim humans are the only one with this ability-- though I do think we are better at it than most. Dogs, crabs, birds, ants, gorillas, anything with the ability to perceive the world, aware of its surroundings.

 

[crossfire]

Are you certain about that 100% determinism? A perfect circle cannot exist in the physical world due to quantum fluctuations, but we can certainly picture a perfect circle in our minds.

Well, one unintended effect this thread's conversation is having on me is that it is really helping me to understand Plato's World of Forms better! Thanks Doors of Perception.

 

[Skwim]

Hmmmm. well, let's see.

If I lacked free will in choosing to reply to the OP, then you must assume that "fate" designed/destined me to do so.

I would assume he does, which I second.

The rub then becomes, assuming I had no choice in doing so, what is the design/purpose inherent in my action?

No you don't. And any purpose would be whatever your mind concluded was appropriate, a conclusion it had to come to.

If the concept is that free-will is non-existent, the implication is then drawn that any acts on my part are manifestly "purposed" to suit an agenda/outcome not of my own craft or choice.

No. what determinism forces you to do has no more purpose than the purpose of a tornado. It just is.

If that is true, then what is the need of any capacities of reason or logic within our species? Any?

These are all the consequences of deterministic forces, genetic, physiological, and other biologically developed conditions, which have created such a capacity, and have led people to reason.

Again, assuming that we are incapable of affecting outcomes or circumstances by means of reason or logic, what evolutionary advantage does sentience or intellect offer beyond a that of a protozoan, or slime mold?

But we are capable of affecting outcomes or circumstances by means of reason or logic. It's just that such reasoning and logic are the culmination of a series of causes and effects: determinism in action.

It can be fairly said the the overwhelming majority of known species today do in fact "suffer" the whims and fancies of "fate", in that they can not consciously choose to alter their circumstances or affect external influences upon their "unwilling" outcomes.

And the notion of choosing is nothing more than assigning the outcome of cause/effect to the fancy of freewill. The fact is no true choosing occurrs. We do what we do because we cannot do otherwise.

An oak tree can not seek shelter nor escape from a flood, fire, lightning, or wind.

Yup, but it can grow leaves. So what's your point; that we can do things an oak tree cannot? Believe it or not, all things can do what others cannot. .

I can, because I am not an oak tree. I can choose what action to take when confronted with untoward circumstance.

Again with this false notion of choosing: that you freely opt to do this rather than that. Truth is, you had to do "this."

I can appreciate the appeal for some of a life lived without personal choice (aka "free will"), as it provides complete exoneration of any accountability for responsibility or culpability for the circumstances in which you may find yourself confronting...which in a existence of purely orchestrated and irrevocably deterministic outcomes...is most convenient, and more than a bit sad really.

So, do you know of, or ever heard of, anyone who does this? I haven't, and I'm a hard determinist acquainted with other hard determinists..

 

[Me Myself]

It's possible, sure.

But I find the concept of consciousness being able to tweak probabilities more likely. We know what blue is-- it's simply how our eyes perceive and our brain interprets different wavelengths of light. It's no different then any other color, so there's no reason why blue would change something but not the other colors as well. It's not unique.

Consciousness, however, is pretty darn unique. And it has something else going for it: It has the ability to be aware of its surroundings. I think that part is crucial. It seems to be able to sense options; it can imagine a future different from the present.

Just because you can think of a silly example to counter my own doesn't somehow make my hypothesis just as silly as yours.

Well you have just decided that imagining a future different than the present can somehow give consciousness this ability. I find that arbitrary.

The way I see it, we could arbitrarily assign such ability to anything.

True, that doesn't hurt my hypothesis at all. Do note that I don't claim humans are the only one with this ability-- though I do think we are better at it than most. Dogs, crabs, birds, ants, gorillas, anything with the ability to perceive the world, aware of its surroundings.

Or anything blue. Equally arbitrary

 

[Falvlun]

Well you have just decided that imagining a future different than the present can somehow give consciousness this ability. I find that arbitrary.

The way I see it, we could arbitrarily assign such ability to anything.

Or anything blue. Equally arbitrary

We currently don't know if aliens exist. Is it "just as arbitrary" to believe it is more probable for life to exist on Earth-like planets than it is to believe that alien life exists on a Mercury-like planet?

We have reasons to assign a higher probability to Earth-like planets, namely because we know that life can be formed and sustained on Earth-like planets. We have no similar reason to prefer Mercury-like planets.

I have developed a theory and have given reasons of how consciousness could be a game-changer in a hard determinism sort of world. Feel free to do the same with your color blue. Otherwise, you're simply batting for a Mercury-like planet.

Regardless, your hard-determinism outlook is no better. It is built on the same amount of assumptions and faith. The only difference is that you are unaware of that fact.

 

[Falvlun]

So, do you know of, or ever heard of, anyone who does this? I haven't, and I'm a hard determinist acquainted with other hard determinists..

That's why I don't think hard-determinists really act as hard-determinists. Their belief is only brain-deep, but it doesn't sink in, really. You are like Christmas-day Christians: You only go to church on Christmas day, and if someone asks what you believe, you say "Yeah, sure, Jesus died for my sins." You're talking the talk, but you ain't walking the walk.

 

[Falvlun]

Again with this false notion of choosing: that you freely opt to do this rather than that. Truth is, you had to do "this."

Prove it.

 

[Me Myself]

We currently don't know if aliens exist. Is it "just as arbitrary" to believe it is more probable for life to exist on Earth-like planets than it is to believe that alien life exists on a Mercury-like planet?

We have reasons to assign a higher probability to Earth-like planets, namely because we know that life can be formed and sustained on Earth-like planets. We have no similar reason to prefer Mercury-like planets.

I have developed a theory and have given reasons of how consciousness could be a game-changer in a hard determinism sort of world. Feel free to do the same with your color blue. Otherwise, you're simply batting for a Mercury-like planet.

Regardless, your hard-determinism outlook is no better. It is built on the same amount of assumptions and faith. The only difference is that you are unaware of that fact.

Everything hinges on faith on one degree or another.

Now you have chosen to believe that imagining a reality different than the current makes you capable of affecting the biological and physical factors of such reality in a way different than a tornado would be able to. Why? Because... you want, I think?

The way I see it: it is possible that your position is true, but it is also possible that my position about blue is true. Saying that blue does not have free will is also a position of faith, because you cannot evidence whether it has or does not have. The reason no one says blue has free will is because no one cares, but a lot of people care about human free will so some decide to believe it exists. That doesn´t mean it is more identifiable than the blue thing.

About mercury: life as we know it needs what earthlings had needed, why? hummm probably because we know earth better? I see no reason to believe life that is very different to ours say, not "carbon based" can exist in places we cant.

 

[Falvlun]

Everything hinges on faith on one degree or another.

Now you have chosen to believe that imagining a reality different than the current makes you capable of affecting the biological and physical factors of such reality in a way different than a tornado would be able to. Why? Because... you want, I think?

The way I see it: it is possible that your position is true, but it is also possible that my position about blue is true. Saying that blue does not have free will is also a position of faith, because you cannot evidence whether it has or does not have.

About mercury: life as we know it needs what earthlings had needed, why? hummm probably because we know earth better? I see no reason to believe life that is very different to ours say, not "carbon based" can exist in places we cant.

Just because everything is possible doesn't mean that everything is equally probable.

 

[Me Myself]

Just because everything is possible doesn't mean that everything is equally probable.

Sure, and free will because of blue and free will because of consciousness are equally probable unless you prove otherwise. You have not

 

[Falvlun]

Sure, and free will because of blue and free will because of consciousness are equally probable unless you prove otherwise. You have not

You say they are the same. If you think that I have to prove that they are not equal, then why don't you have to show that they are equal? Fair is fair.

Why do you think blue, rather than red, would make a difference when blue and red are the exact same phenomenon--- perception of wavelengths by a human brain. There's no reason to think that one phenomenon would change it but the same wouldn't.

Actually think about what you, as a hard determinist, are claiming. You are claiming that since the big bang, there has been a perfect, unbroken chain of causes and effects that inexorably led to the condition of the universe as it is today. That is a pretty incredible claim, but let's say that it's real.

What could break that chain? That's the problem for free-will advocates, or anyone with any sort of interest in twisty riddles. Seriously, pretend that free-will exists. Now try to explain it. Work backwards.

Perhaps my explanation to that riddle could use an image.
[youtube]Oic8VtfREf4[/youtube]
Perpetual Motion

These 'perpetual motion" contraptions swing indefinitely (if not for gravity) until some outside force touches it to stop it. But for that outside force to stop it, it first must be aware that it exists. To be able to change the inexorable motion, you must first know that this motion is occurring. This is why I believe that consciousness is necessary, in fact the only thing, that can purposefully tweak the chain; it is the only thing aware of the chain in the first place.

Okay, now your turn.

 

[Me Myself]

Why do you think blue, rather than red, would make a difference when blue and red are the exact same phenomenon--- perception of wavelengths by a human brain. There's no reason to think that one phenomenon would change it but the same wouldn't.

Because it is a specific range of light different than that of red. But I am mostly going by "Why not?" just as you go with free will . The only difference between blue and conssiousness is that for you it would be important that it was consciousness and I couldnt care less about it being blue, but both are arbitrary decisions of what may work different than the rest of the universe but we can never know.

Actually think about what you, as a hard determinist, are claiming. You are claiming that since the big bang, there has been a perfect, unbroken chain of causes and effects that inexorably led to the condition of the universe as it is today. That is a pretty incredible claim, but let's say that it's real.

What could break that chain?

Something outside of it, but then the problem persists. As long as you take every element in consideration, there is no need to define anything as outside. After all, if it can effect on the system, then it is not completely independent of the system and it is not truly outside. It would become another factor to be considered.

That's the problem for free-will advocates, or anyone with any sort of interest in twisty riddles. Seriously, pretend that free-will exists. Now try to explain it. Work backwards.

My first problem with free will is that I doubt many people are even sure of what they are advocating. Ultimately they only want to feel they are in control of their own life, and the feeling that there is no "if"s makes them feel they are not. So they make up the word "Free will" and start playing poetry with it.

I´ll see if I can try to pretend it exists, but first I need to give you my problem in your definition:

If consciousness is material, as you are a materialist, then it has been created by matter and the specific way in which it is is the effect of matter. Why does one consciousness makes decisions different than others? You want to say "There is no reason. It´s random" Or more specifically, Why does consciousness influences on... dratz I even have problems theorizing it up o_0 , You will say "Well, it is not completely random. But it has its moment´s" because you cannot get out of psychological patterns and things history and sociology shows us about percentages and likabilities of human conduct under specific scenarios. Now under what reason would you say that there is some sort of "random" that occurs here?

Blah, I´ll try it up again. Consciousness is material, just like everything else, but because of some reason it turns out it is the only thing that "may go one way or another" in the universe. There are some anomalies in it´s effects that could NEVER be predicted under any circumstance by ANYTHING because they are UNCAUSED. Not all. But some. Okay, let´s see what´s next.

*saw the thing and the reasoning*

Okay... but how do you know the consciousness is not conditioned t happen in specific moments? I mean I get what you are trying to say, trust me , I do. I am not saying people cant change their patterns, I am saying there are bigger patterns.

Nature is full of complex patterns. Just because we seem more complex doesnt mean we are something different than predictable patterns. We have seen our patterns, but just as even the most accurate weather predictions can be wrong because of the flapping of wings of a butterfly, the most brilliant empathizer may be wrong about what Bob, that he knows from al his life , will do about X or how will he react because of some tiny thing he didn´t think about.

I can give you we have more variables because that is what seems to be the case, or that we can be more "surprising" and les predictable than tornadoes, but would you say tornado has free will simply because butterflies can turn his winds?

Why not think about butterflies as you would think about consciousness?

Let´s say butterflies are my new blue, that way I explained it already . Tornadoes have free will because of butterflies.

your ball.

 

[NIX]

Assuming that people don't actually choose anything, it is funny, especially in the western world of consumerism the extreme number of things that are available for people to choose from. We choose what to buy, how much/how many, where to buy. How many women spend hours choosing clothing, shoes, handbags... the whole day at the mall....and they LOVE IT. Some people will spend weeks and months choosing just the right fixtures and such for home renovations. Bargain hunters, coupon cutters actively spend hours each week narrowing down their choices, due to their perception that the lowest price marks the best choice. We choose Pepsi or Coke, Burger King-Wendy's- or McDonalds, Colleges, Favorite sports teams. Thanks to the multiplex mega theatre, even going to the movies becomes an epic choice decision- especially when you have a few people out together.

For people who cannot actually chose anything at all, we certainy spend a lot of time chosing things.

 

[Me Myself]

Assuming that people don't actually choose anything,

We choose things. We have a will.

But it is determined.

People always do this o.o...

Think of a watch. The watch doesn´t cease to point at time simply because it does not have free will. The tornado does not cease to spin because it doesn´t have free will. Humans will not stop having will simply because it is determined, and we wont stop making choices simply because we realize they were fixed by everything else.

 

[Me Myself]

think of a novel. The characters make choices. No one would say "Harry Potter didn´t choose to do that, because the writter..." . Harry Potter did. That is the way he was written to do.

If I program this computer to turn off in 5 minutes, it will do so. It will be programed, but it still did so. Have you ever heard of chess computers? have you ever played against the computer on a video game? Sure, your opponent doesn´t have free will, but it wont stay iddle in even the easiest difficulties (okay this may depend on the game )

 

[NIX]

We choose things. We have a will.

But it is determined.

People always do this o.o...

Think of a watch. The watch doesn´t cease to point at time simply because it does not have free will. The tornado does not cease to spin because it doesn´t have free will. Humans will not stop having will simply because it is determined, and we wont stop making choices simply because we realize they were fixed by everything else.

In such a case, we, like a wound watch, are simply going through the motions (of chosing). Sure, we sort through things because we can, and human beings by nature are sorters. So we sort till we find the 'shiny thing' that catches our eye/captures our mind. If we enjoy the experience of it- all the better. :flirt::cover: Otherwise we are just running around in circles in a vein attempt to beat the clock, and hopefully pay the mortgage at the end of the month- because so many factors have determined that it's not a good idea for humans to live out on the street.

 

[NIX]

think of a novel. The characters make choices. No one would say "Harry Potter didn´t choose to do that, because the writter..." . Harry Potter did. That is the way he was written to do.

If I program this computer to turn off in 5 minutes, it will do so. It will be programed, but it still did so. Have you ever heard of chess computers? have you ever played against the computer on a video game? Sure, your opponent doesn´t have free will, but it wont stay iddle in even the easiest difficulties (okay this may depend on the game )

No, we pretend that 'Harry Potter' chose to do this or that. Most people chose to suspend disbelief for the sake of a story. Because they are (pre)wired to enjoy the experience.

 

[Me Myself]

No, we pretend that 'Harry Potter' chose to do this or that. Most people chose to suspend disbelief for the sake of a story. Because they are (pre)wired to enjoy the experience.

Take the videogame for an example then.

The video game makes a bunch of choices that are predetermined. So does a Chess computer opponent.

I doubt it will be very difficult to make a robot that buys clothe and even develops a sense of fashion.

I am merely telling you that saying "we make choices" is not really an argument for whether the choices are predetermined or not.

 

[GawdAweful]

We choose things. We have a will.

But it is determined.

People always do this o.o...

Think of a watch. The watch doesn´t cease to point at time simply because it does not have free will. The tornado does not cease to spin because it doesn´t have free will. Humans will not stop having will simply because it is determined, and we wont stop making choices simply because we realize they were fixed by everything else.

But the problem is in those words "making choices". It will all depend on how you define choice. I would say they are not really choices. They are determined by brain wiring and chemistry. To tell the world there is no free will is much too great a risk if there is even a remote possibility you're wrong. If the book is already written, no person can have done otherwise. He would not have any real choices to make (especially if you accept an Einstein block universe). No person can be at fault for anything they do. It would raise enormous moral implications.

So, if I understand you correctly, I had no choice in this universe but to disagree with you?