we have no free will - prove me wrong!

[Curious George]

More detail please? The known laws are deterministic on the macroscopic level. That's us.

How do we know that?

Of course.

Really? Please explain.

 

[Polymath257]

How do we know that?

Through observation, measurement, and testing.

Really? Please explain.

We do not need to control a situation to get data and use statistics on that situation. For example, we can do a statistical analysis of the spectral properties of stars. We have no control over those stars.

 

[Curious George]

How does free will come into play in knowing these things? What choice is made? By what mechanism is it made?

We *know* that choices typically happen subconsciousnly before being reported to the conscious mind.

Before being reported there is some brain activity. However the brain activity is not indicative of an actual choice.

This typically happens up to half a second *before* the conscious mind thinks it is making a decision.

In a cpuple studies, something akin to what you are expressing happened. But those studies have also been challenged.

This is demonstrated with brain scans and people stating when they made decisions. The times are always off.

I agree that we see brain activity prior to a choice. That does not mean freewill does not exist.

Already that shows there is a large amount of illusion and re-writing of the past going on in our decision making. Why would the 'feeling' of free will not be part of that illusion?

That doesn't show illusion. That shows that our brains work and that work is related to choice. Moreover, one must have control in order to conduct any study. Without any control the study cannot be valid. Free will is necessary for control.

 

[Curious George]

Through observation, measurement, and testing.

Over which we hace no control? That is preposterous.

We do not need to control a situation to get data and use statistics on that situation.

Sure you do.

For example, we can do a statistical analysis of the spectral properties of stars. We have no control over those stars.

We needn't control the stars, but we need control our observation devices, our logic, our study itself. We most certainly need control.

 

[Polymath257]

Before being reported there is some brain activity. However the brain activity is not indicative of an actual choice.

In a cpuple studies, something akin to what you are expressing happened. But those studies have also been challenged.

I agree that we see brain activity prior to a choice. That does not mean freewill does not exist.

That doesn't show illusion. That shows that our brains work and that work is related to choice. Moreover, one must have control in order to conduct any study. Without any control the study cannot be valid. Free will is necessary for control.

And it shows that the choice is made before the consciousness is aware of it. That means it isn't determined by the consciousness. And that implies it isn't 'free' in the sense some here want.

 

[Curious George]

And it shows that the choice is made before the consciousness is aware of it. That means it isn't determined by the consciousness. And that implies it isn't 'free' in the sense some here want.

No study has shown that a choice is made before the conscious is aware of it.

All you have done is point put that there is localized brain activity before a choice is made. You are reading what you want into that.

 

[Polymath257]

Over which we hace no control? That is preposterous.

Sure you do.

We needn't control the stars, but we need control our observation devices, our logic, our study itself. We most certainly need control.

So we do not need control over what we are measuring in order to make a statistical analysis. Furthermore, *I* don't need to control the instruments if someone else does.

But in neither situation is free will a requirement in getting the information. Some sort of activity is yes, but that activity need not be 'free' in the sense we are talking about here.

 

[Polymath257]

No study has shown that a choice is made before the conscious is aware of it.

All you have done is point put that there is localized brain activity before a choice is made. You are reading what you want into that.

At the very least, it is good reason to question the notion of free will. You may not consider it conclusive, but it is still a very good reason to question.

 

[Curious George]

So we do not need control over what we are measuring in order to make a statistical analysis. Furthermore, *I* don't need to control the instruments if someone else does.

But in neither situation is free will a requirement in getting the information. Some sort of activity is yes, but that activity need not be 'free' in the sense we are talking about here.

So someone else has free will but you don't? That is silly.

Moreover, you still need control over the data you select to analyze and the logic you employ in ypur effort to analyze. You cannot get around control. Withput assuming control, your study is invalid.

 

[Polymath257]

So someone else has free will but you don't? That is silly.

Moreover, you still need control over the data you select to analyze and the logic you employ in ypur effort to analyze. You cannot get around control. Withput assuming control, your study is invalid.

And why does that control imply free will? I agree it implies a will, but I don't see why it is free of prior influences. So your whole 'control' issue is beside the point.

I no more expect others to have free will than I expect myself to. I also expect all of us to have the illusion of freedom in our choices.

 

[Curious George]

At the very least, it is good reason to question the notion of free will. You may not consider it conclusive, but it is still a very good reason to question.

It is not just that I don't consider it conclusive. It is that the study was not conclusive. Determinism appeals to information processing theory and a mechanistic worldview. It offers order. I understand why some are enamored with such prospects. The problem is that it is self contradictory.

Suggesting determinism is like suggesting we know nothing. Despite our everyday experience of control, despite the necessity for control, and despite the inherent irrationality of the idea, some people still insist on determinism.

 

[sayak83]

True, but the size of Planck's constant says that the distribution of possibilities for macroscopic objects is very small.

It's possible that choices happen during situations where there is sensitive dependence on local conditions in the brain. In that sense, even slight differences in our thoughts or beliefs could lead to a different choice. But then, there is the separate issue of awareness of that sensitivity.

One issue is that nobody can claim we *always* have free will to do whatever we want. If we are falling off a cliff, we do not have the choice to stop falling in mid air.

More generally, our thought processes take time. Decisions take time to make and become conscious. We know, for example, that many choices are made subconsciously and only reported to the consciousness after almost half a second. Our perceptions of what happens does not match the reality.

It appears that flies have free will.
Do flies have free will? : Nature News

 

[Curious George]

And why does that control imply free will? I agree it implies a will, but I don't see why it is free of prior influences. So your whole 'control' issue is beside the point.

I no more expect others to have free will than I expect myself to. I also expect all of us to have the illusion of freedom in our choices.

Because without freewill then control is impossible. A que ball hitting the 8 ball in the pocket no more controls the 8 ball than the pocket in which the 8 ball lands. Determinism is a worldview without control. Things happen that are caused by things happening that are caused by things happening ad infinitum. It is absolutely possible for such a world to exist, it is not possible to have knowledge in such a world.

 

[Polymath257]

It is not just that I don't consider it conclusive. It is that the study was not conclusive. Determinism appeals to information processing theory and a mechanistic worldview. It offers order. I understand why some are enamored with such prospects. The problem is that it is self contradictory.

Suggesting determinism is like suggesting we know nothing. Despite our everyday experience of control, despite the necessity for control, and despite the inherent irrationality of the idea, some people still insist on determinism.

I'm not particularly enamored of determinism when it comes to our choices. I know determinism is wrong and causality isn't correct at the quantum level.

But I also don't see determinism as irrational in any sense. It is probably quite close to being true for our choices, since they are macroscopic phenomena (even if they happen at the neural level).

You are wrong in saying determinism means we know nothing. We know exactly as much as we do without determinism. The 'control' we have may well be illusory or different than 'free'. We *know* the brain often 'fills in' gaps and that our conscious experiences may well be wrong. So it isn't too far to suggest our choices are made by the same type of neural mechanisms that all our other thoughts, emotions, plans, etc are mediated by. And that means a largely deterministic system.

 

[Polymath257]

Because without freewill then control is impossible. A que ball hitting the 8 ball in the pocket no more controls the 8 ball than the pocket in which the 8 ball lands. Determinism is a worldview without control. Things happen that are caused by things happening that are caused by things happening ad infinitum. It is absolutely possible for such a world to exist, it is not possible to have knowledge in such a world.

OK, I disagree. That first cue ball *does* control the subsequent motion of the second. The causality is precisely 8why* there is control. Without that string of causes, there could be no control. Free will, if anything, shows that no control is active in some situations.

 

[Curious George]

I'm not particularly enamored of determinism when it comes to our choices. I know determinism is wrong and causality isn't correct at the quantum level.

But I also don't see determinism as irrational in any sense. It is probably quite close to being true for our choices, since they are macroscopic phenomena (even if they happen at the neural level).

You are wrong in saying determinism means we know nothing. We know exactly as much as we do without determinism. The 'control' we have may well be illusory or different than 'free'. We *know* the brain often 'fills in' gaps and that our conscious experiences may well be wrong. So it isn't too far to suggest our choices are made by the same type of neural mechanisms that all our other thoughts, emotions, plans, etc are mediated by. And that means a largely deterministic system.

If the control is illusory, so too os the knowledge. You cannot have justification without control. It is you who are wrong in assuming we can.

 

[Polymath257]

If the control is illusory, so too os the knowledge. You cannot have justification without control. It is you who are wrong in assuming we can.

Once again, I disagree. We can have knowledge because of repeatability of the observations. No 'control' in the sense of free will is required.

 

[Curious George]

OK, I disagree. That first cue ball *does* control the subsequent motion of the second. The causality is precisely 8why* there is control. Without that string of causes, there could be no control. Free will, if anything, shows that no control is active in some situations.

That is not control. The que ball was controlled. If you spasm in your sleep, did you have control? Control is tied to consciousness.

 

[Polymath257]

That is not control. The que ball was controlled. If you spasm in your sleep, did you have control? Control is tied to consciousness.

OK, I disagree with that. Control is tied to causality. Sometimes consciousness is involved, but not always.

I'm not sure why you are so obsessed by control. That seems very strange to me. And I fail to see the connection between control and free will.

In fact, I would generally say consciousness doesn't control. it only influences.

 

[Curious George]

OK, I disagree with that. Control is tied to causality. Sometimes consciousness is involved, but not always.

I'm not sure why you are so obsessed by control. That seems very strange to me. And I fail to see the connection between control and free will.

In fact, I would generally say consciousness doesn't control. it only influences.

I focus on control because it is what we assume. Everyday of our lives even the most staunch "determinist" assumes control. It is ultimately an assumption of free will.

Your use of control is common enough, but more of a metaphoric use. The idea that the switch controls the light is not wrong, but it is wholly different than the way by which I am using the word. In short, you are equivocating.