Gentoo Forums :: View topic - Resurrection Hill #1: Free Will is an Illusion

Resurrection Hill #1: Free Will is an Illusion

View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next

Gentoo Forums Forum Index

Off the Wall

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

richk449
Guru
Guru

Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

Posted: Fri May 25, 2012 4:22 am Post subject: Resurrection Hill #1: Free Will is an Illusion

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-illusion-of-the-self2

Quote:

In what sense is the self an illusion?
For me, an illusion is a subjective experience that is not what it seems. Illusions are experiences in the mind, but they are not out there in nature. Rather, they are events generated by the brain. Most of us have an experience of a self. I certainly have one, and I do not doubt that others do as well – an autonomous individual with a coherent identity and sense of free will. But that experience is an illusion – it does not exist independently of the person having the experience, and it is certainly not what it seems. That’s not to say that the illusion is pointless. Experiencing a self illusion may have tangible functional benefits in the way we think and act, but that does not mean that it exists as an entity.

Free will is certainly a major component of the self illusion, but it is not synonymous. Both are illusions, but the self illusion extends beyond the issues of choice and culpability to other realms of human experience. From what I understand, I think you and I share the same basic position about the logical impossibility of free will. I also think that compatibilism (that determinism and free will can co-exist) is incoherent. We certainly have more choices today to do things that are not in accord with our biology, and it may be true that we should talk about free will in a meaningful way, as Dennett has argued, but that seems irrelevant to the central problem of positing an entity that can make choices independently of the multitude of factors that control a decision. To me, the problem of free will is a logical impasse – we cannot choose the factors that ultimately influence what we do and think. That does not mean that we throw away the social, moral, and legal rulebooks, but we need to be vigilant about the way our attitudes about individuals will be challenged as we come to understand the factors (both material and psychological) that control our behaviors when it comes to attributing praise and blame. I believe this is somewhat akin to your position.

WW responds

pjp
Administrator

Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16033
Location: Colorado

Posted: Fri May 25, 2012 3:10 pm Post subject:

Sounds like predestination. _________________ lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties. In Loving Memory 1787 - 2008

BoneKracker
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1499
Location: U.S.A.

Posted: Fri May 25, 2012 3:58 pm Post subject: Re: Resurrection Hill #1: Free Will is an Illusion

richk449 wrote:

an illusion is a subjective experience that is not what it seems.

By that definition, everything in human experience is an illusion. That's not very useful, is it? This man is apparently unwilling to consider multiple frames of reference, and does not acknowledge the significance of perception.

While I'm leaping to judgement on very little, this immediately tells me he is a person of limited intellectual flexibility. This is the sort of person who merely regurgitates one rigid line of thinking and is incapable of adding original insight. My reaction at this point is that he's probably not worth listening to.

Also, I acknowledge that compatibilism may appear to a one-dimensional thinker to be incoherent, but it's okay for things in completely different frames of reference to be incoherent.
_________________
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel INGSOC.
-- Headline of a document on Winston Smith's terminal in his cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, seen briefly in the background in one scene of the movie rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four.

dmitchell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 1154
Location: Austin, Texas

Posted: Fri May 25, 2012 9:50 pm Post subject:

Obviously determinism is incompatible with free will. Not with the sensation of free will, though. _________________ Your argument is invalid.

BoneKracker
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1499
Location: U.S.A.

Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 1:18 am Post subject:

dmitchell wrote:

Obviously determinism is incompatible with free will. Not with the sensation of free will, though.

I would say the "perception" of free will. It goes beyond typical "illusion", such as the Earth seeming to be flat. We make choices, and our choices do in fact determine outcomes.

What we're not privy to via perception is that our choices are probably (in my opinion) subject to deterministic physics. Our "will" and "decisions" are actually (probably) predictable if incomprehensibly complex chain reactions in the cosmic flow of an effectively infinite volume of cause-and-effect ramifications.

The reason I say I agree with a sort of compatibilism is that one frame of reference on reality is that of our human perception, which is real. Perception is not imaginary; it is real. We really perceive things. They are real to us. For example, we perceive that we exist in at least three physical dimensions and move through time, when physical reality is that all points in time are coincidental (Einstein) and that (according to recent theories) reality exists in only two dimensions, with the cosmos as we experience it being some kind of projection, like the interior of a black hole is a projection of the information on its surface.

When you start wading through the semantics of it, there are two tendencies: one being to balk at ambiguity and insist upon a "one true reality"; and the other being to willingly assume various frames of reference in the contexts where they are useful. I do not believe, for most day-to-day purposes, that a frame of reference solely rooted in determinism is useful. Moreover, I think that history shows us that any "one true reality" we might cling to is quite probably wrong -- just as wrong as the flat Earth or Geocentric solar system.
_________________
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel INGSOC.
-- Headline of a document on Winston Smith's terminal in his cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, seen briefly in the background in one scene of the movie rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four.

richk449
Guru
Guru

Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 1:54 am Post subject:

BoneKracker wrote:

When you start wading through the semantics of it, there are two tendencies: one being to balk at ambiguity and insist upon a "one true reality"; and the other being to willingly assume various frames of reference in the contexts where they are useful. I do not believe, for most day-to-day purposes, that a frame of reference solely rooted in determinism is useful. Moreover, I think that history shows us that any "one true reality" we might cling to is quite probably wrong -- just as wrong as the flat Earth or Geocentric solar system.

I think I finally understand what you mean by this frame business.

You are essentially claiming that the word "reality" has multiple meanings. One meaning is "that which is true", and the other meaning is "that which we experience to be true". Under the first definition, there is no free will, but under the second, there is.

BoneKracker
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1499
Location: U.S.A.

Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 4:10 pm Post subject:

richk449 wrote:

BoneKracker wrote:

Yes. Keep in mind that we don't really know what is true, and what think is "really true" is probably also an "illusion", no matter how empirical or scientific or literal or discrete a given frame of reference is, we are still relying on our perception, whether we are aware of it or not.

For some purposes, it is more useful to acknowledge the significance of our perception, even if we know it not to be actual reality. Free will is one example. Time, morality, or the importance of intelligent life might be others.

Call it "willful suspension of disbelief" if you prefer. You're not "really" driving across the Bay Bridge at 70 mph, but close your eyes and let go of the wheel, and see if it doesn't matter.
_________________
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel INGSOC.
-- Headline of a document on Winston Smith's terminal in his cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, seen briefly in the background in one scene of the movie rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four.

richk449
Guru
Guru

Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 5:49 pm Post subject:

BoneKracker wrote:

richk449 wrote:

BoneKracker wrote:

Yes.

I am glad we got that straightened out. You think that free will is not an illusion, but real, because you changed the definition of the word "reality". If we stick to what the word reality actually means, then free will is not real.

Quote:

For some purposes, it is more useful to acknowledge the significance of our perception, even if we know it not to be actual reality. Free will is one example.

Part of acknowledgement is using the proper word to describe it. That word happens to be "illusion".

Quote:

Keep in mind that we don't really know what is true, and what think is "really true" is probably also an "illusion", no matter how empirical or scientific or literal or discrete a given frame of reference is, we are still relying on our perception, whether we are aware of it or not.

While true, this is like the magician waving his hand around to distract from the semantic switcheroo you are trying to pull.

dmitchell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 1154
Location: Austin, Texas

Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 6:10 pm Post subject:

As I understand it, the argument for determinism boils down to: 1. Particles are deterministic. 2. Humans are made of particles. 3. Therefore humans are deterministic. But I'm not at all convinced that 3 follows. Seems like a fallacy of composition or something. _________________ Your argument is invalid.

richk449
Guru
Guru

Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 6:43 pm Post subject:

dmitchell wrote:

As I understand it, the argument for determinism boils down to:

1. Particles are deterministic.

2. Humans are made of particles.

3. Therefore humans are deterministic.

But I'm not at all convinced that 3 follows. Seems like a fallacy of composition or something.

richk449 wrote:

Definitions first:
Free will is the ability of a conscious human to control the future state of the universe in some way.

In order to have free will, there must be multiple (or infinite) possible future states, and the conscious human mind must be able to independently select one and cause it to come into being (or influence it's probability of coming into being).

Argument:
The universe is governed by natural laws.

The natural laws may be deterministic (Newton, Einstein), or probabilistic (quantum physics), but in either case, they are based entirely on the prior state of the universe.

Given a prior state, the next state is a combination of deterministic laws acting on the prior states, and random chance.

Since any state depends only on prior states and random chance, there is no way for a conscious mind to influence the future state of the universe.

Thus, there is no free will.

http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-909074-postdays-0-postorder-asc-highlight-determinism-start-25.html

dmitchell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 1154
Location: Austin, Texas

Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 7:06 pm Post subject:

I remember you writing that. As I recall, after discussing it we decided that if "the universe is governed by natural laws" was not to beg the question, then you had to make an argument like the one I sketched here. Otherwise you are just assuming that which is to be proved. _________________ Your argument is invalid.

richk449
Guru
Guru

Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 7:10 pm Post subject:

dmitchell wrote:

I remember you writing that. As I recall, after discussing it we decided that if "the universe is governed by natural laws" was not to beg the question, then you had to make an argument like the one I sketched here. Otherwise you are just assuming that which is to be proved.

Yes, that sounds about right.

So your position is that the universe is not governed by natural laws?

BoneKracker
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1499
Location: U.S.A.

Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 7:19 pm Post subject:

richk449 wrote:

BoneKracker wrote:

richk449 wrote:

BoneKracker wrote:

Yes.

Quote:

For some purposes, it is more useful to acknowledge the significance of our perception, even if we know it not to be actual reality. Free will is one example.

Part of acknowledgement is using the proper word to describe it. That word happens to be "illusion".

Quote:

While true, this is like the magician waving his hand around to distract from the semantic switcheroo you are trying to pull.

So, you think I changed "the definition of reality"? If you have a single, universal, unambiguous definition of reality, I'd like to hear it (and don't make me laugh at you for citing "Definition 1" from dictionary.com or something).

I thought you had your head around this, but apparently it slipped off. :lol:

_________________
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel INGSOC.
-- Headline of a document on Winston Smith's terminal in his cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, seen briefly in the background in one scene of the movie rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four.

BoneKracker
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1499
Location: U.S.A.

Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 7:34 pm Post subject:

richk449 wrote:

dmitchell wrote:

richk449 wrote:

http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-909074-postdays-0-postorder-asc-highlight-determinism-start-25.html

But you're already off in la-la land, because your definitions are full of illusions (such as Gallilean space-time). In reality, there is no absolute time, so there there is no such as a "prior state" or "future state", so your whole thought process is nothing but mental masturbation. Unless, that is, you are willing to consider multiple frames of reference (such as I mentioned before, or such as multiple planes of simultaneity).
_________________
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel INGSOC.
-- Headline of a document on Winston Smith's terminal in his cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, seen briefly in the background in one scene of the movie rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four.

richk449
Guru
Guru

Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 8:19 pm Post subject:

BoneKracker wrote:

You agreed that in order for your argument to make sense semantically, one of the definitions of reality is "that which we experience to be true".

Perhaps that is a valid definition of reality. But it isn't what I mean when I say "reality". If a crazy person hallucinates goblins, does that mean that goblins are real?

richk449
Guru
Guru

Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 8:27 pm Post subject:

BoneKracker wrote:

I have no idea where you are getting this "there is no absolute time" stuff. If it was true though, doesn't that just prove that there is no free will? If there is no prior, and no future, what is free will?

BoneKracker
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1499
Location: U.S.A.

Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 8:45 pm Post subject:

richk449 wrote:

BoneKracker wrote:

I have no idea where you are getting this "there is no absolute time" stuff.

Absolute time "stuff"? :lol:

You are discussing "prior state" and "future state". That requires a single frame of reference. But relativity invalidates concepts like "prior" and "future".

richk449 wrote:

If it was true though, doesn't that just prove that there is no free will? If there is no prior, and no future, what is free will?

From a universal frame of reference there is no time, all events must be understood to coexist, and determinism is moot because the concept itself is invalid.

But, from our frame of reference, there is in fact time, past, present, future, sequences of events, cause-and-effect relationships, particle collisions, and so on. There is even (presently at least) quantum indeterminacy.

So, which reality are we talking about? You were talking about the latter, I believe, and you implied there was one definition of reality. So, does that mean you deny the former, and dispute Einstein's theory and the experiments which have validated it?

Isn't your understanding of reality, scientifically grounded as it may be, a mere perception, and therefore but one of many possible realities -- one of many "illusions"?

And, is, say, a social frame of reference -- one serving purposes centered on human interaction such as morality and law -- any less valid than your Gallilean/Newtonian "reality" in which the question of determinism is not moot?
_________________
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel INGSOC.
-- Headline of a document on Winston Smith's terminal in his cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, seen briefly in the background in one scene of the movie rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four.

b0nafide
Tux's lil' helper

Joined: 17 Feb 2008
Posts: 139
Location: ~/

Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 10:37 pm Post subject:

richk449 wrote:

If a crazy person hallucinates goblins, does that mean that goblins are real?

Crazy person here. The goblins are real until you've taken enough medications for long enough. If you respond well to medications you eventually stop having any evidence for your delusions and you become more receptive to a consensual reality without goblins. Unless all you do is play D&D.

I'm at a stage in my life where the appeal of a consensual reality is vast. However, all of those individual interpretations of a consensual reality will always be flawed in some way because of the unique perspective of each observer. So everybody should be a good scientist and constantly test their theories, especially in the presence of goblins.

I subscribe to Douglas Hofsteader's observations about consciousness being a feedback loop.

Edit: some words

BoneKracker
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1499
Location: U.S.A.

Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 11:10 pm Post subject:

Good phrase there: "consensual reality". _________________ Oldthinkers unbellyfeel INGSOC. -- Headline of a document on Winston Smith's terminal in his cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, seen briefly in the background in one scene of the movie rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four.

sugar
Guru
Guru

Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 579
Location: Morrinsville, New Zealand

Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 11:43 pm Post subject:

richk449 wrote:

You are essentially claiming that the word "reality" has multiple meanings. One meaning is "that which is true", and the other meaning is "that which we experience to be true". Under the first definition, there is no free will, but under the second, there is.

Therefore, one meaning is objective, and one meaning is subjective, because it's existence requires an observer.
_________________
Jesus Could Be Their Candidate and the Republicans Would Still Lose

BoneKracker
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1499
Location: U.S.A.

Posted: Sun May 27, 2012 1:02 am Post subject:

sugar wrote:

richk449 wrote:

Therefore, one meaning is objective, and one meaning is subjective, because it's existence requires an observer.

Objective reality is a mystical conception. We cannot even theorize about that which is fundamentally beyond our experience, much less observe or experimentally confirm it. We are flatlanders. Everything we can conceive of is almost certainly illusion. It is nothing but hubristic self-deception for use to make reference to objective or universal reality as though we have an inkling what it really is.
_________________
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel INGSOC.
-- Headline of a document on Winston Smith's terminal in his cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, seen briefly in the background in one scene of the movie rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four.

sugar
Guru
Guru

Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 579
Location: Morrinsville, New Zealand

Posted: Sun May 27, 2012 1:27 am Post subject:

BoneKracker wrote:

sugar wrote:

richk449 wrote:

Therefore, one meaning is objective, and one meaning is subjective, because it's existence requires an observer.

lol!
_________________
Jesus Could Be Their Candidate and the Republicans Would Still Lose

BoneKracker
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1499
Location: U.S.A.

Posted: Sun May 27, 2012 1:36 am Post subject:

sugar wrote:

BoneKracker wrote:

sugar wrote:

richk449 wrote:

Therefore, one meaning is objective, and one meaning is subjective, because it's existence requires an observer.

lol!

I'm serious. This discussion about Free Will is a good example. Our science tells that, from any universal frame of reference all events are coincidental. The very definition of "event" ceases to have meaning. So, in that universal, objective reality, there can be no such thing as "determinism" much less "free will"; yet here we are debating between the two.

My point here was that it is neither accurate nor useful to try to argue that one's perspective is the "the real reality" and someone else's is "illusion" when we're probably not even capable of comprehending the truly universal objective reality.

I suppose the bottom line is that the thread title is correct: free will is an illusion; but so is everything else, so does that really matter?
_________________
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel INGSOC.
-- Headline of a document on Winston Smith's terminal in his cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, seen briefly in the background in one scene of the movie rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four.

dmitchell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 1154
Location: Austin, Texas

Posted: Sun May 27, 2012 2:52 am Post subject:

richk449 wrote:

So your position is that the universe is not governed by natural laws?

No, my position is that free will is compatible with natural laws.
_________________
Your argument is invalid.

sugar
Guru
Guru

Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 579
Location: Morrinsville, New Zealand

Posted: Sun May 27, 2012 4:39 am Post subject:

BoneKracker wrote:

lol!

no, you're not serious! lol!
_________________
Jesus Could Be Their Candidate and the Republicans Would Still Lose

Display posts from previous:

	Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall	All times are GMT Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 1 of 3

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Designed by Kyle Manna © 2003; Style derived from original subSilver theme. | Hosting by Gossamer Threads Inc. © | Powered by phpBB 2.0.23-gentoo-p9 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group