Destiny and Free will

[Olmstead]

Unless you know everything that is, that's an argument from ignorance. Clearly. It's right freaking there on the surface.

Unless you want to introduce some sort of soul into the argument, we know that those are the only two things that constitute a person. It's a closed system.

And this. How did you like me stealing your cause from you? Feel good? That was the point. You don't even know what you're doing with this one, can't prove diddly and are acting on deep internal motivations that go all the way back to the big bang.

So I guess you're an NPC. How quaint. I'm not. I choose not to be of my own free will.

I don't know what you mean? I've made my peace with the lack of free will in the world. If my particular cluster of cells emerged in a different environment, I could have been a completely different person, perhaps even someone truly despicable. I also know that all my achievements have simply been an arbitrary result of random forces. It doesn't trouble me, it's simply the nature of existence.

 

[Manopolus]

Unless you want to introduce some sort of soul into the argument, we know that those are the only two things that constitute a person. It's a closed system.

Nope. I don't have to explain why. I already have the evidence inside me. Presumably, so do you. I don't need to know why to point at it and say it's there. If you're actually another sentient being, you will understand it just fine. If not... well, I have no clue what that's like. Is it like anything at all, or just nothing?

 

[Manopolus]

I'm actually not the one trying to prove anything. I'm just pointing at the obvious thing and saying it's there. But as I said before, I can't know whether you have that. I just know that I do. I can't experience yours, and you can't experience mine. It's 1st person POV only, and it can't be reduced to the 3rd person without losing its core meaning.

Descartes said it best... but don't think that means I agree with everything he said. "I think, therefore I am." But it's more foundational than even that. It's the "I" in that sentence, not the thinking. The will, itself. If you don't have it, I can't show you mine. There's just no way to do that that can't be hand-waved away. But that doesn't mean that I don't know it's there. I'm not confused. It's definitely there, and it's me.

 

[Chanakya]

Why would I need to go back to the Big Bang, or give you a description of such exhaustiveness that it would clearly require some sort of invasive surgery?

The problem is already solved through basic logic, even before we go into concrete examples of how different brains respond to different stimuli: there is nothing else but nature and nurture, which means that those two things completely control the person we end up being. How could it be otherwise?

It's not Occam's Razor, it's quite simply the only logical explanation.

That's not a problem for the argument, it just means that you don't like the implications.

Just jumping in here to point out that while I agree with your POV generally, but quantum randomness was beyond what the Determinists of old knew and accounted for.

Toss quantum randomness in the mix, and while that doesn't give you free will, but it does take away determinism.


eta:
Thinking about what I'd posted here a bit --- I'm not a physicist! --- I don't really know if quantum randomness necessarily smooths out at our macro scale. Perhaps it does? After all, Newton's laws do work, as do all of those other laws-of-apparent-causation that science has uncovered to us, and that we operate by. So yeah, maybe randomness is a thing in the quantum realm, but maybe it is irrelevant to us non-quantum folks?

But even if that observation is true --- and people better versed with QM can tell us if it is --- I was saying, even if it were true that quantum randomness smooths out in the our macro world and becomes irrelevant: even so, we then have determinism tempered by not-determinism (but not free will either!) in temporal pockets (like immediately after the Big Bang) as well as spatial pockets (like in black holes). So, still no determinism, not really --- although again, no free will either.

 

[porch]

Ah, welcome back to the discussion, person without any real consciousness.

Yeah, I was being snarky, but here's the thing. Weirdly, it's parts of the science/skeptical community that think they've absolutely proven determinism. No. You haven't. For one thing, free will does not require dualism. It just requires the acknowledgement that you make decisions every stinking day, over and over and over again. That is evidence. That's all the evidence anyone should need.

Hi!

I don't actually usually go about calling myself a Determinist, I was more playing along and mirroring your language. That said, it's pretty close, probably a close enough approximation for this discussion. I think I might prefer Naturalist? Mostly, I would prefer to discuss my ideas, than to give them a title and then clarify any preconceptions that don't fit with what I actually think.

Switching gears:

What is a river? A river is a system within a system within a system. We can give it a name because it has boundaries, kind of. I propose that a river is made primarily of two things: flowing water, and a riverbed. The water shapes the riverbed, the riverbed shapes the water. In this way, a river makes thousands and thousands of decisions about itself every day. And, of course, it's greatly influenced by all kinds of external factors. The weather, beavers, and so on. What is a human? A human is very similar to a river, making thousands and thousands of decisions about ourselves every day, but far more complex. Humans, unlike rivers, also have consciousness, awareness. Some of the bits of our stream of consciousness may even be described as causal, but only in the context of also, themselves, being the product of endless chains and loops of causality.

That's how I see it.

 

[Manopolus]

Hi!

I don't actually usually go about calling myself a Determinist, I was more playing along and mirroring your language. That said, it's pretty close, probably a close enough approximation for this discussion. I think I might prefer Naturalist? Mostly, I would prefer to discuss my ideas, than to give them a title and then clarify any preconceptions that don't fit with what I actually think.

Switching gears:

What is a river? A river is a system within a system within a system. We can give it a name because it has boundaries, kind of. I propose that a river is made primarily of two things: flowing water, and a riverbed. The water shapes the riverbed, the riverbed shapes the water. In this way, a river makes thousands and thousands of decisions about itself every day. And, of course, it's greatly influenced by all kinds of external factors. The weather, beavers, and so on. What is a human? A human is very similar to a river, making thousands and thousands of decisions about ourselves every day, but far more complex. Humans, unlike rivers, also have consciousness, awareness. Some of the bits of our stream of consciousness may even be described as causal, but only in the context of also, themselves, being the product of endless chains and loops of causality.

That's how I see it.

I can't detect whether a river has a "me." I can detect whether I have a "me." And this "me" makes conscious decisions which defy my own inertia, defying both internal and external pressures. This me does it all the time. If that's not your experience as well, I can't convince you.

 

[theprestige]

I can't detect whether a river has a "me." I can detect whether I have a "me."

These sound like qualia claims that cannot be properly evaluated, let alone proven or disproven. Are you being disingenuous on purpose, or is this really part of your argument?

 

[Manopolus]

These sound like qualia claims that cannot be properly evaluated, let alone proven or disproven. Are you being disingenuous on purpose, or is this really part of your argument?

Yes, I experience qualia. Don't you? I've heard people deny it, but I get the impression that they don't know what the word actually means. It's just the cumulative experience of existing, with all of the details involved. It's functionally about sensing, but it's more personal... with a 1st person POV instead of a 3rd person POV.

If you don't experience it, I would have to assume that you're not even conscious.

 

[porch]

If you want to argue for free will, you'll have to explain how such a thing can exist in such a system. Or explain how the necessarily entirely deterministic choice of arbitrarily molded cells still counts as free will.

That is true, but... first things first! In my experience, proponents of Free Will have never given a coherent definition of it. They talk about it, they talk around it, they say it's obvious open your eyes and see. But they can never leap the first hurdle. I want to hear a definition with practical value. How, exactly, can we detect Free Will vs No Free Will? Free Will - what does it do?

This is pretty much a reiteration of my challenge: What can one do with Free Will that one cannot do without it?

Is there anybody







out there?

Is there anybody out there?

 

[Myriad]

Your "me" is a character in the narrative your brain creates. Hence your "me" can do things only a character in a narrative can do, like make a decision. Actual material things like your brain don't make decisions, they evolve from one state to the next based on causality and/or quantum randomness.

Why does your brain create this narrative? The same reason your kidneys create urine. It's a necessary by-product of its performing its function in support of your material organism's survival.

 

[Manopolus]

Your "me" is a character in the narrative your brain creates. Hence your "me" can do things only a character in a narrative can do, like make a decision. Actual material things like your brain don't make decisions, they evolve from one state to the next based on causality and/or quantum randomness.

Why does your brain create this narrative? The same reason your kidneys create urine. It's a necessary by-product of its performing its function in support of your material organism's survival.

Great! Now you're trying to convince me that I don't exist. Won't work. Conscious beings inherently know better. It's foundational. If I didn't exist, I wouldn't be here, and neither would you (or my perception of you, anyway).

Solipsism would be the more logical answer than accepting the alternative view, if you actually don't know what I mean. I don't mean that would be preferable. I mean it would actually be more logical than denying that I exist.

 

[theprestige]

Yes, I experience qualia. Don't you? I've heard people deny it, but I get the impression that they don't know what the word actually means. It's just the cumulative experience of existing, with all of the details involved. It's functionally about sensing, but it's more personal... with a 1st person POV instead of a 3rd person POV.

If you don't experience it, I would have to assume that you're not even conscious.

That's the problem with qualia. I have no way of knowing whether I experience anything you consider qualia, nor whether you experience anything like what I experience. For all I know, you're a p-zombie, communicating with me through a Chinese room.

 

[Myriad]

Great! Now you're trying to convince me that I don't exist. Won't work.

Of course you exist. Why would I be "trying" to convince you of the opposite of what I just said?

 

[Thermal]

That is true, but... first things first! In my experience, proponents of Free Will have never given a coherent definition of it. They talk about it, they talk around it, they say it's obvious open your eyes and see. But they can never leap the first hurdle. I want to hear a definition with practical value. How, exactly, can we detect Free Will vs No Free Will? Free Will - what does it do?

This is pretty much a reiteration of my challenge: What can one do with Free Will that one cannot do without it?

Is there anybody







out there?

Is there anybody out there?

Yes, there is. I asked you for clarification to engage your challenge and y'all is ignoring the ◊◊◊◊ out of it.

 

[Manopolus]

That's the problem with qualia. I have no way of knowing whether I experience anything you consider qualia, nor whether you experience anything like what I experience. For all I know, you're a p-zombie, communicating with me through a Chinese room.

Perfect!

You got my point. You can say you're an NPC all you want. For all I know, you might be. I'm not. I know that. It's not even in question. That does not match my experience whatsoever. And it's not even close. Alternatively, maybe I've just expressed my will more often than you have. Maybe that's why you don't get it. Don't know.

Not speaking directly, even. Just trying to spell it out better. Not sure I can. If you're as conscious as I am, you'll probably get it. Furthermore, I'm too damned strong-willed to be convinced of much of anything, especially on weak mechanical nonsense which depends upon defining the limits of "me" in ways that lack any real justification.

Sure, my experience of "me" tends to be centered on the eyes, but that's only because they're my primary sensing mechanism. Other than that, I don't know what "me" is, and I don't think you do, either. I just experience it in real time. I won't let you define me. That's my job, and a crucial point that's hard to express. It actually proves that I exist if you figure it out... I'm expressing my will in real time. Right here in front of you, completely transparent.

As a matter of fact, I'm naked right now. Always am in the summer... I've broken the human clothing addiction that others implanted within me against my will. I've taken back control of that. Solo. Didn't require assistance or suggestion. Sorry if that "makes" you uncomfortable, but it doesn't have to. I'm fine with it, but it took years to get here. It wasn't a one-off, and it sure as hell isn't a compulsion. It required discipline, not a lack of it.

Describing "you" within those mechanical limits is fine if it fits your experience. Doesn't fit mine, though.

 

[porch]

I'm actually not the one trying to prove anything. I'm just pointing at the obvious thing and saying it's there. But as I said before, I can't know whether you have that. I just know that I do. I can't experience yours, and you can't experience mine. It's 1st person POV only, and it can't be reduced to the 3rd person without losing its core meaning.

Descartes said it best... but don't think that means I agree with everything he said. "I think, therefore I am." But it's more foundational than even that. It's the "I" in that sentence, not the thinking. The will, itself. If you don't have it, I can't show you mine. There's just no way to do that that can't be hand-waved away. But that doesn't mean that I don't know it's there. I'm not confused. It's definitely there, and it's me.

The Sun revolves around the Earth. It sinks below us every night, and daily rises in the East, crosses over heads, then descends in the West for another loop. Wait. We know that that isn't really true! And yet, that is how we speak of the occurrence in everyday language, because it is absolutely true! As in, that is exactly what it appears to be from our perspective here on Earth. In that way, the geocentric model is "true"; it is useful to us as conceptual/linguistic construction. And so it is with Free Will. It is "true" only in that it's a useful tool for communication. We assume the existence of Free Will when we tell stories about ourselves and one another, because it is exactly how things appear on the surface, from our POV. And because it seems so obvious, the foundations of our languages have the concept ingrained. Even though the body generates the mind, we have to say, "My body", whereas of course, "body" should really be spoken of as the main character, and the ego, or what-have-you, should be in its possession, instead of the other way around. But "Body's i" just doesn't parse in English.

Now I am guilty of jumping the gun, because no proponent of Free Will has provided that coherent definition and/or risen to my challenge. I'm not the one asserting the existence of Free Will, so it's not my job. What are we even talking about, people?

 

[porch]

Yes, there is. I asked you for clarification to engage your challenge and y'all is ignoring the ◊◊◊◊ out of it.

Apologies. I've been skipping over lots of posts, and truncating posts in my quotes. It's because I have so much to say, not because I am avoiding anything. Let me review, and I will get back to you. And if anybody feels I have glossed over or ignored anything they have said, just tell me the specific thing you want addressed, and I will hop to.

Within reason.

 

[Thermal]

Apologies. I've been skipping over lots of posts, and truncating posts in my quotes. It's because I have so much to say, not because I am avoiding anything. Let me review, and I will get back to you. And if anybody feels I have glossed over or ignored anything they have said, just tell me the specific thing you want addressed, and I will hop to.

Within reason.

No apologies necessary. You had no choice, after all. Damned Big Bang.

 

[porch]

Ok. What is all this about 'powers'? Free will is not a power; it's an understanding of how stuff, like consciousness, works.

Is this the post we're talking about?

You seem to be talking about Free Will as some kind of conceptual framework? A way of looking at how consciousness works, or something.

I'm trying to talk about what are we talking about. I'm not the one proposing Free Will, so at this point in the discussion, I'm the one looking for clarification. People seem to be saying that Free Will is something one can have that sets them apart from entities that don't have Free Will. I want to know what that might be. Waiting.

 

[Thermal]

Is this the post we're talking about?

You seem to be talking about Free Will as some kind of conceptual framework? A way of looking at how consciousness works, or something.

I'm trying to talk about what are we talking about. I'm not the one proposing Free Will, so at this point in the discussion, I'm the one looking for clarification. People seem to be saying that Free Will is something one can have that sets them apart from entities that don't have Free Will. I want to know what that might be. Waiting.

The usual jazz. The ability to make choices, agency over our personal fate, the very cogito that ergo sums. You analogized it a couple posts ago, at length and in detail, making it crystal clear that you need no clarification, so I don't think we need to entertain the befuddlement act?