• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The unsolved problem of "free will"

cyborg said:
UGH - why are you persisting with asking about an inconsequential detail?
Click to expand...
We are supposed to reason from a generality? So be it.

Seems to me the problem is when the art critic encounters an untitled sculpture.

Your solution is for him to declare “there is no such thing as an untitled sculpture since it’s title is “untitled sculpture”. Then he goes back to the muse with the title “untitled sculpture” and, lo and behold there is a painting for that title.

The art critic can then confidently declare that a titled painting is an untitled sculpture since to say otherwise would clearly result in a paradox. As he encounters further untitled sculptures he can also confidently declare “oh, look there is that titled painting called ‘untitled sculpture’ again”.

But whatever title the critic chooses will simply not be the title of the untitled sculpture – because his declaration “’unsculptured title’ is the title of an untitled sculpture” is not a paradox, it is simply a meaningless sentence. “Title of an untitled sculpture” is a meaningless concept.

And the painting, be it ever so detailed and artful is not a sculpture.
 
Dancing David said:
Wow that car just skidded into the ditch!

memory is a physical process akin to digital reconstruction.

What did you mean to say?
Click to expand...
I meant to say what I said. The feelings, the qualia if you will, are end products in the same sense a photograph is an end product. They have no influence on anything, they are just stills.
 
Dancing David said:
Sorry twin of mine DD, but they are very active processes, there is no experience that is not a process. They are not static units of storage.

What are you trying to say.
Click to expand...
If so, they are processes in the same sense a series of photographs flipped through are a process.
 
Robin said:
Let me get this straight. You know for a fact that there is no voluntary component to our brain processes. But you don't have any specific definition of "voluntary" in mind when making this claim. Right?
Click to expand...
You were the one who introduced this concept of voluntary. What did you mean?
 
Once again:

1) Most people seem to agree that the "I" is a physical process in the brain.
2) If it is a physical process, then it follows the physical laws.
3) Physical laws only allow for two types of interactions: caused and non-caused (i.e. random).
4) The concept of "free will" implies some sort of independence from physical laws by this process in the brain.
5) Anyone agreeing with 1-3 cannot agree with 4 and remain logically consistent.
6) Ergo, for anyone agreeing with 1-3, the problem of "free will" disappears.

That was my point.
 
Last edited:
:rolleyes:

Shades of Franko. That's not meant as a slight. I have found memories of those heady times.
 
Actually, thinking back, I think I see what you mean.

"Atoms obey the laws of physics.
People are made of atoms.
Therefore people obey the laws of physics"

That the sort of thing you are refering to?
 
While I'm sort of shocked to realize I agree with this, I do hope that my lack of belief in any of the other weird things Franko believed in, does make a distinction possible. :)
 
DanishDynamite said:
If so, they are processes in the same sense a series of photographs flipped through are a process.
Click to expand...


Again, my point solely was that they are not photos, photos would be static storage of sensation. Perceptions are created from the data points of sensation, often with blatant manufacturing of missing data. The same is true but even more so of memory.

That was my point that perception is not like video or a photo. It is more like taking the partial shreds of a canvas or photo and reconstructing the picture, they are not like the others which store all the photons and have a static memory of them. If you visual field is sensitive to color only in the middle portion, why do you see the colors at the edges? Because your brain makes them up, so if it is a photo it is a photo that is colored only in the middle and in fact has hole in it. Then after the sensation (the photo part) you have an analog processor go and recreate the missing pieces.

So photos are a static analogy. That was solely my point.

Memory is even worse, Proust's memory of the cookie is not a video memory, and it is more like a play based upon a historical event. And the script is partial and recreated each time as well.
 
DanishDynamite said:
Once again:

1) Most people seem to agree that the "I" is a physical process in the brain.
2) If it is a physical process, then it follows the physical laws.
3) Physical laws only allow for two types of interactions: caused and non-caused (i.e. random).
4) The concept of "free will" implies some sort of independence from physical laws by this process in the brain.
5) Anyone agreeing with 1-3 cannot agree with 4 and remain logically consistent.
6) Ergo, for anyone agreeing with 1-3, the problem of "free will" disappears.

That was my point.
Click to expand...
I think that summarises everybody's position from the start.

The so-called problem of free will hinges on the claim that our own experience appears to contradict the naturalistic evidence

I only pointed out that this is not in fact true and that nothing in our everyday experience (if carefully examined) actually contradicts a purely naturalistic explanation of choice.

The position stated in 4) is, in any case nonsensical - that our choices might be free of the mechanism that made them possible in the first place.
 
DanishDynamite said:
You were the one who introduced this concept of voluntary. What did you mean?
Click to expand...
I already clearly defined what I meant. A voluntary process is a deterministic process that occurs within subjective experience, or to use your preferred form of words "resulting in a subjective experience".

A voluntary action is the action as a result of an intention. An intention occurs when there is understanding of environment, action and consequence.

Understanding is the part of the model of the environment that we maintain and refine in our brains that is accessible to subjective experience.

However your claim was:
All physical processes in the brain either result in a subjective experience, or they don't. These processes may be caused or they may ultimately be non-caused. In either case, there is no "voluntary" bit.
Click to expand...
so under my definition this claim would be meaningless - clearly a brain process that results in subjective experience can be a brain process that results in subjective experience.

Hence my question - in what sense are you using the word voluntary here?
 
Last edited:
DanishDynamite said:
I meant to say what I said. The feelings, the qualia if you will, are end products in the same sense a photograph is an end product. They have no influence on anything, they are just stills.
Click to expand...
Firstly, how do you know they have no influence? Do you have evidence or an argument that demonstrates this?

And if they have no influence then why do we have them? Why has evolution equipped us with the mechanism for qualia and subjective experience in general if they could not have provided any comparative survival benefit?

If the brain processes on their own would have done the job just as well, then why do we have the add-on?
 
Dancing David said:
I agre free will could potentialy exist without violating physical laws.
Click to expand...
I suppose it all depends on the definition of free will. Note that my first post in this thread was a quote from Hume that says just this.
 
Dancing David said:
And it is assuming that the lump under the rug is a gorilla, the fact that that people use the word consciousness does not mean it exists. there are many processes that make up the lump under the carpet. Verbal cognition, 'awareness of perceptions', deliberative cognition, inuitive pattern recognition. There are many things that we call consiousness, but even in the medical terminology there are 'levels of consciousness. You are conscious up to the point you pass out or fall asleep.
Click to expand...
What about that period, while sleeping, that we become conscious of our own thoughts? The REM sleep that marks dreaming, seems to mark a period where we suddenly become conscious of our own thoughts. The illusion is so real, that we begin to "make choices" as if we
were awake. Doesn't that show a "core consciousness" somewhat separate from the overall process?
 
Last edited:
Doesn't that show a "core consciousness" somewhat separate from the overall process?
Click to expand...

No. It gives an insight into the insanity lurking below the surface when your brain is disconnected from all inputs to the outside world. With nothing to mediate the thought processes they are simply left to their own devices.
 
lightcreatedlife@hom said:
What about that period, while sleeping, that we become conscious of our own thoughts? The REM sleep that marks dreaming, seems to mark a period where we suddenly become conscious of our own thoughts. The illusion is so real, that we begin to "make choices" as if we
were awake. Doesn't that show a "core consciousness" somewhat separate from the overall process?
Click to expand...

No.

There are different levels of consciousness during sleep as well. Coma is a level of conscious ness. I don't see that you have demonstrated your core consciousness.

And when you say thoughts do you mean verbal cognition?
 
The latest iteration of my beliefs on this issue goes something like this:

Our consciousness is completely dependent upon our past experiences (including internal ones), because these are the only things that can affect us in any way. Thus, at any given time, our response to a certain stimulus is completely determined -- by our consciousness, which is in term completely determined by our experiences.

Thus, "free" will is basically just our ability to modify our experience base (and hence our consciousness) in order to affect future decisions. Of course, the decision to do this is also determined, and so on and so forth.... But at some point this deterministic tree becomes so complex that, coupled with the myriad of possible experiences the outside world can offer us, we effectively end up with something pretty darn close to libertarian free will.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom