Is Hell Dead?

[Golden Teapot]

It's rare indeed but I'm with FT on this one.

[DrTiTus]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

I'm not sure that you are correctly interpreted what I'm saying.

We can only 'attempt to exercise that will' if we actually have it. So for someone to believe that actions are causally determined by previous events, while at the same asserting that they have the volition to act as if they can exercise will - is an oxymoron. Without will, you can't attempt anything.

You're saying that "making a decision" is impossible in a deterministic worldview. A computer can "make a decision" in the sense that the value of possible outcomes are evaluated and the superior option selected as the choice. How is this any different to our "free will"? To make a decision is only to reduce a set of possible choices to a single element. That there is more than one algorithm for reduction allows us to be "free".

[crocos]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

I'm not sure that you are correctly interpreted what I'm saying.

We can only 'attempt to exercise that will' if we actually have it. So for someone to believe that actions are causally determined by previous events, while at the same asserting that they have the volition to act as if they can exercise will - is an oxymoron. Without will, you can't attempt anything.

Aah. I suspect we have similar opinions here but are coming from two quite different directions.

I was coming from the direction of if you don't have free will but you perceive yourself (incorrectly) as having free will, then if you strive to assert that it will be because whatever is guiding your will has caused you to try and assert having free will. A somewhat dark joke in a way, as asserting one's free will would in fact be nothing of the sort.

The only point where I take issue is you don't seem to differentiate between "will" and "free will". "Will" merely requires awareness and desire, whereas "free will" requires the additional element of a chance that the desire cannot be determined purely through deduction when all facts are known.

Your argument seemed to address lack of will rather than will vs free-will.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by adonis

But we are acting. Are you saying the fact that we are acting is proof of free will?

No I'm just saying that either we have some input into our actions or we don't.

Originally Posted by DrTiTus

You're saying that "making a decision" is impossible in a deterministic worldview.

The concept of determinism says this.

Originally Posted by DrTiTus

A computer can "make a decision" in the sense that the value of possible outcomes are evaluated and the superior option selected as the choice. How is this any different to our "free will"? To make a decision is only to reduce a set of possible choices to a single element. That there is more than one algorithm for reduction allows us to be "free".

Casual determination doesn't see this as free will as the outcome was determined by prior events rather than an entity having any influence in the outcome.

[adonis]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

No I'm just saying that either we have some input into our actions or we don't.

Define the 'input' we have.

The problem with this conversation is that it's too caught up in rationalities instead of looking at reality. I don't see how acting on the belief that we have free will has to be fundamentally different to acting on any other unjustifiable belief.

In Bill Maher's, "Religulous" he talks about how he quit smoking. He had some shitty problem in his life so he made a deal with 'god' that if 'he' made it go away he'd quit. The problem went away so he quit, because you know, you don't go back on a deal with 'god'. Does Bill Maher believe in god? Of course not, it was just a stupid excuse to do something that was ultimately in his own best interest.

Human decisions are not fundamentally based on rationality. Believing in free will can make a person feel like their situation isn't dictating their lives to them. It is of course, but the reality is so complex that the situation we perceive provides just a fraction of the variables needed to determine an outcome. Believing in free will could just be the belief that the unknown factors involved will be favourable.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by adonis

Define the 'input' we have.

By input I mean some sort of influence on the outcome, as initiated by us. If the Universe is a closed system then everything that happens is pre-determined and we have no control over what happens. If you don't believe in free will "as a metaphysical phenomenon" then that implies that you believe we have no control at all. Doesn't it?

Originally Posted by adonis

The problem with this conversation is that it's too caught up in rationalities instead of looking at reality. I don't see how acting on the belief that we have free will has to be fundamentally different to acting on any other unjustifiable belief.

Because our ability to act on this belief is dependent on the belief being true. If it's not true then that takes away our ability to act.

Originally Posted by adonis

the reality is so complex that the situation we perceive provides just a fraction of the variables needed to determine an outcome. Believing in free will could just be the belief that the unknown factors involved will be favourable.

Does this mean that we can have some control over what happens? And if so is it this compatible with causal determination?

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by crocos

if you don't have free will but you perceive yourself (incorrectly) as having free will, then if you strive to assert that it will be because whatever is guiding your will has caused you to try and assert having free will. A somewhat dark joke in a way, as asserting one's free will would in fact be nothing of the sort.

Sums it up quite nicely.

[adonis]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

By input I mean some sort of influence on the outcome, as initiated by us. If the Universe is a closed system then everything that happens is pre-determined and we have no control over what happens. If you don't believe in free will "as a metaphysical phenomenon" then that implies that you believe we have no control at all. Doesn't it?

Essentially yes, but you haven't actually defined anything here. If you have free will what makes you 'choose' one action over another?

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Because our ability to act on this belief is dependent on the belief being true. If it's not true then that takes away our ability to act.

No it doesn't, we just act differently than if it was true, crocos summed it up well.

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Does this mean that we can have some control over what happens? And if so is it this compatible with causal determination?

No, it doesn't mean that at all. What it means is that our emotional state is a large factor in how our actions are determined. Having beliefs can alter that state.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by adonis

Essentially yes, but you haven't actually defined anything here. If you have free will what makes you 'choose' one action over another?

This depends on the person’s subjective level of consciousness. By this I mean how aware someone is of how they are conditioned by environment and past experiences. Someone totally influenced by external factors will basically run on impulse rather than making a more deliberate choice which goes through the mental process of judging the merits of multiple options etc.

Originally Posted by adonis

No it doesn't, we just act differently than if it was true, crocos summed it up well.

I'm not sure where you're coming from. If we don't have freewill then we have no control over our actions. We can't choose to "just act differently" if we have no control over our actions. And I thought what crocos said supported my point ie. "asserting one's free will would in fact be nothing of the sort."

Originally Posted by adonis

No, it doesn't mean that at all. What it means is that our emotional state is a large factor in how our actions are determined. Having beliefs can alter that state.

But in a closed Universe our emotional states are also determined. Something causing me to have an emotion or do an action is not the same as me having a free choice - I couldn't have done differently.

[CCS]

Is Hell Dead?

[A Corpse]

Hell is this thread.

[adonis]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

This depends on the person’s subjective level of consciousness. By this I mean how aware someone is of how they are conditioned by environment and past experiences. Someone totally influenced by external factors will basically run on impulse rather than making a more deliberate choice which goes through the mental process of judging the merits of multiple options etc.

I accept that people are self aware, and I accept that this level of awareness most likely differs from person to person (and possibly even from species to species). However the kind of 'mental process' you are describing - concious action - could be just as much a product of causality stemming from external factors as subconcious action. Conscious action does not imply control.

I'm not sure where you're coming from. If we don't have freewill then we have no control over our actions. We can't choose to "just act differently" if we have no control over our actions.

I never suggested that we did. I said that IF free will existed, we might act differently, which is pretty obvious I thought.

And I thought what crocos said supported my point ie. "asserting one's free will would in fact be nothing of the sort."

Yes, and I agree. The bit I was rebutting was "If it's not true then that takes away our ability to act." - If it's not true, of course we can still act, we just act in accordance with causality rather than free will or some combination of the two.

But in a closed Universe our emotional states are also determined. Something causing me to have an emotion or do an action is not the same as me having a free choice - I couldn't have done differently.

Yes... and? Why is there a 'But' at the start of your statement?

I think the problem that you're having in understanding my POV is that you're beginning with the assumption that you have free will. I generally start out with what I know and then go from there.

Though as I've previously stated, discussing 'freewill' is pointless as even if we accept determinism as true we are stuck with the presupposition of free will.

This is the opinion I take issue with, I don't see any reason why 'free will' is a necessary assumption.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by adonis

However the kind of 'mental process' you are describing - concious action - could be just as much a product of causality stemming from external factors as subconcious action. Conscious action does not imply control.

Well this depends on what you think consciousness is. This is a murky area and it's not yet clear that consciousness can be explained by physical properties alone (again this is an experiential based belief).
I see a conscious decision as one arising from my consciousness. The more conscious we are, the more aware we are of external factors and the less we are controlled by them. Once my consciousness becomes aware of subconscious influence it can it can override this.

Originally Posted by adonis

I never suggested that we did. I said that IF free will existed, we might act differently, which is pretty obvious I thought.

How would the type of will we have now be different if free will existed? I mean would we be able to do things we can't do now?

Originally Posted by adonis

I think the problem that you're having in understanding my POV is that you're beginning with the assumption that you have free will. I generally start out with what I know and then go from there.

Ok so now I see your position as saying humans can act, but don't actually have any control over the action. So I think we both agree that in a closed Universe we can't have freewill.

Originally Posted by adonis

This is the opinion I take issue with, I don't see any reason why 'free will' is a necessary assumption.

By this I mean as an innate practical consideration. My writing this now is only intelligible to me if I assume that it’s a free action on my part. Because of my inbuilt perceptual apparatus the function of me typing this is not experienced as me sitting here with words & typing action just happening and not up to me. Rather my experience of writing this is one of freedom where what I type is experienced as being up to me (I see this as necessary). So having no free will is consistent with our scientific view of how the world works, but we cannot live with it.
It's also pointless because if determinism is true we can't choose to accept it or not anyway!

^This reminds me of an interesting question (that was raised by tor or xor in another thread?) Is not having free will consistent with biological evolution? Does having an extremely costly phenotype ie the illusion of conscious rational decision-making; play a role in our survival?

[DrTiTus]

I am a strange loop.

[adonis]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Well this depends on what you think consciousness is. This is a murky area and it's not yet clear that consciousness can be explained by physical properties alone (again this is an experiential based belief).
I see a conscious decision as one arising from my consciousness. The more conscious we are, the more aware we are of external factors and the less we are controlled by them. Once my consciousness becomes aware of subconscious influence it can it can override this.

I agree that consciousness can't be explained by physical properties alone, however your previous description of conscious action still implied that they are the result of external factors. The differences between subconscious and conscious action is the scope and mechanism behind each respective 'input' and the way such 'information' is organised. We effectively have two different competing systems forming the basis of our actions. None of this implies control.

How would the type of will we have now be different if free will existed? I mean would we be able to do things we can't do now?

I don't know, because I still don't know what you mean by 'free will'. Nothing I've read here requires the use of concepts beyond causality and conciousness.

By this I mean as an innate practical consideration.... but we cannot live with it.

Yes I understand that, I don't agree, and I can live with it.

It's also pointless because if determinism is true we can't choose to accept it or not anyway!

Of course we can 'choose' to accept it or not, but we 'choose' based on factors beyond our 'control'. Whether it's pointless or not is a subjective argument.

^This reminds me of an interesting question (that was raised by tor or xor in another thread?) Is not having free will consistent with biological evolution? Does having an extremely costly phenotype ie the illusion of conscious rational decision-making; play a role in our survival?

An irrelevent question, as conscious rational decision making does not equate to free will.

[Lightspeed]

I will read this page, at some point I promise.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by adonis

I agree that consciousness can't be explained by physical properties alone

So IF consciousness lacks causally sufficient conditions in nature then there wouldn’t be causally sufficient neurobiological conditions moving us from contemplating alternatives to deciding between them.

Originally Posted by adonis

I don't know, because I still don't know what you mean by 'free will'. Nothing I've read here requires the use of concepts beyond causality and conciousness.

Maybe I'm not being clear then. Free will as the ability to act in a way not predetermined.

Originally Posted by adonis

Yes I understand that, I don't agree, and I can live with it.

By ‘cannot live with it’ I don’t mean we can’t accept that we don’t have free will. I mean that everyone experiences the process of deciding and acting as containing causal gaps rather than as causally continuous.

Originally Posted by adonis

An irrelevent question, as conscious rational decision making does not equate to free will.

What do you think free will is?

[adonis]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

So IF consciousness lacks causally sufficient conditions in nature then there wouldn’t be causally sufficient neurobiological conditions moving us from contemplating alternatives to deciding between them.

This is a huge leap in logic. Consciousness focuses on material perceptions, rationalises it, and alters material outcomes. Just because the entity of consciousness can't be fully explained materially does not mean that when it interacts with material non determinate outcomes should be expected. I think there is enough evidence to believe that the timing of this interaction is determined by meeting material requirements.

Maybe I'm not being clear then. Free will as the ability to act in a way not predetermined.

Telling me what is not, is not the same as telling what it is.

By ‘cannot live with it’ I don’t mean we can’t accept that we don’t have free will. I mean that everyone experiences the process of deciding and acting as containing causal gaps rather than as causally continuous.

This only sort of makes sense to me, are you saying that people are aware of their thought processes? If so I don't see the relevancy.

What do you think free will is?

I have no idea... An emotion? An idea?

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by adonis

This is a huge leap in logic. Consciousness focuses on material perceptions, rationalises it, and alters material outcomes. Just because the entity of consciousness can't be fully explained materially does not mean that when it interacts with material non determinate outcomes should be expected.

I disagree. If consciousness isn't bound by cause and effect then by definition it is indeterministic. It's not determined by previous events and so neither would be the outcomes it alters.

Originally Posted by adonis

I think there is enough evidence to believe that the timing of this interaction is determined by meeting material requirements.

I'm not sure that it's that clear yet.

There have been a number of problems regarding studies of free will. ...These studies have therefore only just begun to shed light on the role that consciousness plays in actions and it is too early to draw very strong conclusions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurosc..._will#Overview

Originally Posted by adonis

Telling me what is not, is not the same as telling what it is.

Ok. It's an indeterministic human action or decision.

Originally Posted by adonis

This only sort of makes sense to me, are you saying that people are aware of their thought processes? If so I don't see the relevancy.

No I'm saying that when making decisions, at the conscious level we experience freedom regardless of what's actually happening at the neurobiological level.

[adonis]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

I disagree. If consciousness isn't bound by cause and effect then by definition it is indeterministic.

But its relationship with material is bound by cause and effect. When was the last time you were aware of something that did not have a material cause? Consciousness is partly comprised of senses and memories. Without the those material parts, consciousness isn't capable of affecting the material world.

I'm not sure that it's that clear yet.

I think it's a reasonable belief. Firstly, differing levels of awareness are obvious among members of different species. Secondly, I don't remember always being self aware. My memories go back to maybe 3-4 years old, possibly earlier though I don't remember things in detail, probably because my brain was still early in it's development. It may not be possible to explain consciousness using material considerations alone, but it's interaction with the material world is limited by material components.

Ok. It's an indeterministic human action or decision.

How is that any different from your previous "explanation"?

No I'm saying that when making decisions, at the conscious level we experience freedom regardless of what's actually happening at the neurobiological level.

In that case, I'll ask again, what makes a person choose one path over another? Of course you've already answered that question by saying,

By this I mean how aware someone is of how they are conditioned by environment and past experiences. Someone totally influenced by external factors will basically run on impulse rather than making a more deliberate choice which goes through the mental process of judging the merits of multiple options etc.

Your own explanation implies determinism. The thing is, even if I were to accept that consciousness may lead to non-determistic outcomes, what then? Are these non-deterministic outcomes just random? Or do people choose one path over another because some people are just good/evil/some other value? Without a mechanism, you're left with either randomness or set-in-stone values that can't be changed. Neither option would leave us 'free' IMO. It's an illogical concept.

[DrTiTus]

Consciousness /can/ be explained by purely physical processes. What makes you sure that it can't? And, if there is a non-physical aspect, what would that element be? A soul? (lol imo) We can "read minds" (crudely) using physical technology, ie Japanese cat ears. We can also model physical neurons and emulate the learning process. Brains are physical. Consciousness is within the brain. Therefore, consciousness is physical.

Remember that you weren't born in your current "illuminated" state - you were born quite blank, and the sense of self and self awareness which you currently possess is something which develops over time. Why would a supernatural consciousness need time to grow?

[Lightspeed]

Just as an aside consciousness uses the entire body, feelings are literally felt in the body and hence the body is an integral part of human consciousness.

Also, I don't think data is physical. It may have a physical representation, but the value put on that data in non-physical. Likewise with relationships. The two objects themselves may be physical, but I believe the relationship is not.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by adonis

But its relationship with material is bound by cause and effect. When was the last time you were aware of something that did not have a material cause? Consciousness is partly comprised of senses and memories. Without the those material parts, consciousness isn't capable of affecting the material world.

There being a physical process from consciousness to action is beside the point. The point is that the cause of this physical process (consciousness) isn't part of the infinite regress of events and so our actions don't have a 'fixed' cause as determinism states they do.

Originally Posted by adonis

In that case, I'll ask again, what makes a person choose one path over another? Of course you've already answered that question by saying,
Your own explanation implies determinism. The thing is, even if I were to accept that consciousness may lead to non-determistic outcomes, what then? Are these non-deterministic outcomes just random? Or do people choose one path over another because some people are just good/evil/some other value? Without a mechanism, you're left with either randomness or set-in-stone values that can't be changed. Neither option would leave us 'free' IMO. It's an illogical concept.

If outcomes are non-deterministic then the consciousness to action process "must transcend the capabilities of physical systems and require an explanation of nonphysical means". You're asking for an explanation in the context of a closed Universe when I've said that a prerequisite of this argument is an open Universe where indeterminism is logically possible.

[crocos]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Also, I don't think data is physical. It may have a physical representation, but the value put on that data in non-physical. Likewise with relationships. The two objects themselves may be physical, but I believe the relationship is not.

Neuroscience would disagree.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by DrTiTus

Consciousness /can/ be explained by purely physical processes. What makes you sure that it can't? And, if there is a non-physical aspect, what would that element be? A soul? (lol imo) We can "read minds" (crudely) using physical technology, ie Japanese cat ears. We can also model physical neurons and emulate the learning process. Brains are physical. Consciousness is within the brain. Therefore, consciousness is physical

Explaining the explanatory gap is still the hard problem.

[crocos]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

If outcomes are non-deterministic then the consciousness to action process "must transcend the capabilities of physical systems and require an explanation of nonphysical means". You're asking for an explanation in the context of a closed Universe when I've said that a prerequisite of this argument is an open Universe where indeterminism is logically possible.

Not necessarily. A closed universe does not inherently preclude the possibility of chaotic random input in the form of resolution of the quantum foam.

[adonis]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

There being a physical process from consciousness to action is beside the point.

That's the entire point.

The point is that the cause of this physical process (consciousness) isn't part of the infinite regress of events and so our actions don't have a 'fixed' cause as determinism states they do.

Consciousness is not the only cause.

I'll try an analogy. Someone invents a computer that is capable of processing irrational numbers, IE numbers with an infinite number of decimal places. But the only input source it has is a keyboard. So even though it's capable of calculating irrational values, it can only be inputted with rational values, and will therefore only ever output rational values.

Independently, consciousness may not be limited by cause and effect, but because it interacts with determined values its output in our universe is bottlenecked to create determined outcomes.

You're asking for an explanation in the context of a closed Universe when I've said that a prerequisite of this argument is an open Universe where indeterminism is logically possible.

Why did you bother trying to explain it before then? Saying, "I don't know" would have been more accurate. What is the point in believing a concept that you can't explain and can't prove? If this is what you think 'free will' is I gotta say it doesn't seem like you're 'free' from anything. The possibility of being 'free' from a determined path doesn't seem all that appealing when the alternative requires some extra-dimensional looking glass to understand. You're still a slave, you're just a slave to something you can't understand instead of a measurable reality.

Actually, I think I know what 'free will' is now. 'free will' is god.

Originally Posted by DrTiTus

Consciousness /can/ be explained by purely physical processes. What makes you sure that it can't?

Why does a particular frequency of the EM spectrum look like a particular colour? Why does the impulse to run from danger feel like fear? These phenomena can be measured, but the way we perceive them is pretty abstract from what they actually are. Some day we might be able to determine the exact physical requirements that create or maintain consciousness, but that is quite different from explaining why we perceive things the way we do.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by adonis

Consciousness is not the only cause.
Independently, consciousness may not be limited by cause and effect, but because it interacts with determined values its output in our universe is bottlenecked to create determined outcomes.

That's only true if consciousness can't effect an outcome. It can. And because "consciousness may not be limited by cause and effect" then the outcomes it effects do not have a a causal chain of events that goes back to the origin of the universe.

Why did you bother trying to explain it before then? Saying, "I don't know" would have been more accurate. What is the point in believing a concept that you can't explain and can't prove?

I've demonstrated the concept of indeterminism by pointing out that there are things that might have a lack of causally sufficient conditions in nature and therefore the entire universe might not be a single determinate system. The concept of free will is compatible with a multi-dimensional Universe. I'm not trying to prove it, I'm just showing that it's logically possible. You're quite free to believe the Universe is closed and that everything is determined and we have no degree of free will. I choose metaphysical speculation, because I can.

Originally Posted by adonis

The possibility of being 'free' from a determined path doesn't seem all that appealing when the alternative requires some extra-dimensional looking glass to understand. You're still a slave, you're just a slave to something you can't understand instead of a measurable reality.

A lot of theories use the idea of multiple dimensions (string theory, many-worlds interpretation, multiverse) and in this context there is the possibility of some kind of free will. eg

So, free will is then the perception one has when, in a limited number of dimensions, one chooses an option. If you were seeing the whole thing at the same time, in all dimensions, there would be no options, because all the options would be activated at the same time. That both validates the feeling that we have a free choice for creating our own life, and at the same time the idea that the universe is coherent and logical and physical. Your choice doesn't change the whole universe, you just pick one of the available paths.

http://ming.tv/flemming2.php/__show_...010-001774.htm

It looks like we're going to have to agree to disagree (or hope that at the big bang we we're causally determined to agree to disagree) as it seems we're not going anywhere.

Originally Posted by adonis

Actually, I think I know what 'free will' is now. 'free will' is god.

What's God?

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by adonis

What is the point in believing a concept that you can't explain and can't prove?

Well, one could ask what is the point of anything? But that aside, it's conceivable to me that one might believe in an abstract concept that can't be easily explained or a concept that is not easily proved for the sake of gratification, comfort, personal values, spiritualism, simplicity, survival, etc., etc., etc.

For example, I believe that I have worth and value. A contentious belief to be sure, but I can't prove it, can't explain succinctly the nature of this belief. But I believe it.

[Ajax]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

It looks like we're going to have to agree to disagree (or hope that at the big bang we we're causally determined to agree to disagree) as it seems we're not going anywhere.

Enjoy

What's God?

A concept that has reached its expiry date. Something that constrains the development of our species.

[adonis]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

You're quite free to believe the Universe is closed and that everything is determined and we have no degree of free will.

It's possible that not all outcomes are determined, causality may not be constant. What I find contentious is the idea that this possibility has some kind of special relationship with human decision making. Aside from the large burden of proof I'd assign to such a proposition, we actually have rather large problems to solve in society that require us to understand how and why we make decisions. Why does a person choose to murder? Or rape? Or start a war? Or waste time on an internet forum? If we can't logically explain such things we'll have a pretty hard time preventing such decisions from occurring.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Ajax

A concept that has reached its expiry date. Something that constrains the development of our species.

I suspect if you shared it with us most would agree that your concept of God constrains the development of our species.

[Pimp-X]

TLDR; Is this thread about the same shit all the other threads like this are about?

[Ajax]

^ "It's déjà vu all over again"

- Yogi Berra

[Ab]

"Smarter than the average bear."

- Yogi Bear

[Lightspeed]

Hahahaha.

Originally Posted by Pimp-X

TLDR; Is this thread about the same shit all the other threads like this are about?

Well there seems to be a lot less people venting their bullshit, but on the whole, pretty much.

[ilk]

Some of us are smart enough to keep away from your cancerous inability to debate.