[Science] - Free will could all be an illusion

I dont know if me choosing stuff is considered Free will , but i do the choosing , and the choices may be limited , but they are still my choices , even if it is between the devil and the deep blue sea.

MartaLina wrote: I dont know if me choosing stuff is considered Free will , but i do the choosing , and the choices may be limited , but they are still my choices , even if it is between the devil and the deep blue sea.

perfect!

OB1Shinobi wrote:

MartaLina wrote: I dont know if me choosing stuff is considered Free will , but i do the choosing , and the choices may be limited , but they are still my choices , even if it is between the devil and the deep blue sea.

perfect!

Yep thats my lovelife in a song :laugh: no free will in miles to come ...

Lightstrider wrote:

Gisteron wrote: If you had two beings, identical in appearance and behaviour, one with free will and one without, how could you possibly tell them apart?

The being that has free will thinks about or evaluates options presented to it and makes a choice based on it's own reasoning and inner processes.

The being that doesn't have free will is a passive being, a blade of grass bending whichever way the wind blows.

Yet, how do we tell the difference? Does one of them think and evaluate because nature and nurture, stimuli of the moment or random parameters made them respond in this way? Or do they react as they do of their own accord? What does it mean to have a choice? What do we mean when we say someone has free will and how do we tell it from not having any? The term itself is semantically defunct. It is used either to refer to something trivial and irrelevant or to something we know for a fact we don't actually have.
In a sense Khaos is right in that it doesn't matter. One way or another, we live our lives and we are faced with alternatives. The recognition that every impulse we have is either determined or heavily influenced by things beyond the control of a mystical soul-esque kind of "self" leaves us with but one more thought that may or may not influence the choice without that self's having a say in it but the outcome is what ever it is.
If someone is going so far as to claim that there is in fact some kind of self that makes decisions outside of the bounds of biochemistry, it is their burden to propose what that alternative, effectively supernatural, mechanism is and how to test for it, i.e. in what way a world without tinkering souls would look different from our own.

i chose to hit the THANK YOU button :silly:

Gisteron wrote: Jestor, I'd love to give you examples I have, yet I do not know of what. The passage of mine you quoted was not proposing any sort of mechanism or postulate any kind of model at all.

Oh, sorry....

I wasn't calling you out, I was just hopeful....

OK, thanks.....

Khaos wrote: So, going with the flow cannot be a choice? Based on reasoning and inner processes?

How would you know it was or wasnt?

To which, it doesnt matter.

We do what we do and for myself, I give no time to whether its free will or not, because im doing it anyway.

Of course, lol....

"Going with the flow" is a TOTJO Jedi Maxim....

Intervention: To know when not to act.

A Jedi knows how inaction can have as great an impact as action and how some of the greatest lessons are self-taught. To be a victor is also taking that victory from those you protect. A Jedi intervenes only when a Jedi's intervention is required

Also a favorite of mine....

Gisteron wrote:

Lightstrider wrote:

Gisteron wrote: .
In a sense Khaos is right in that it doesn't matter. One way or another, we live our lives and we are faced with alternatives. The recognition that every impulse we have is either determined or heavily influenced by things beyond the control of a mystical soul-esque kind of "self" leaves us with but one more thought that may or may not influence the choice without that self's having a say in it but the outcome is what ever it is.
If someone is going so far as to claim that there is in fact some kind of self that makes decisions outside of the bounds of biochemistry, it is their burden to propose what that alternative, effectively supernatural, mechanism is and how to test for it, i.e. in what way a world without tinkering souls would look different from our own.

It doesn't matter...

But, we are all here on this big blue ball anyway, so what's the harm in speculating?

Doesn't affect my life outside of here, and much more fun than Candy Crush, for me, anyway, lol....

And, maybe one of you smarty-pants will be inspired and figure out how to answer this, or some other currently questionable(?) question.... :lol:....



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

But, we are all here on this big blue ball anyway, so what's the harm in speculating?

Simply because there is no harm, does not mean it has any worth.

And, maybe one of you smarty-pants will be inspired and figure out how to answer this, or some other currently questionable(?) question

While I do not mind the appeal to my intellectual vanity, I am not so egotistical to think that I have the ability to figure something like this out.

First and foremost because it doesnt matter.

There seems to be a ton of potential in awareness, management and refinement of cognitive resources and their processes. Exploring concepts like free will makes one reflect on possible ways thought itself manifests within ourselves, which can allow a person to redefine the way they view and experience the world in various ways IMO.

Again I think I avoided answering the actual question lol, not on purpose, but I think it is an illusion just because the complexity is still beyond our reach so any reason would seem to have to be illusory in some capacity - but I don't think that discounts the possibility of things like 'souls' and 'spirits' etc. As I like to think the pattern of it all could be transferable, as in our selves exist both in the electro-chemical-protein switched physicality we can almost grasp, but also as the state of it as information, it's connections shapes and strengths. If I wanted to wish upon a deathstar I'd hope that the pattern of ones 'self' merged with some ether and we all still manifest within the Force after death
:blink: :lol: :side:
.. though that might then presume that once deceased the pattern cannot change according to its old restrictions, hmmm, to stay the same or to become something new.

Khaos wrote:

But, we are all here on this big blue ball anyway, so what's the harm in speculating?

Simply because there is no harm, does not mean it has any worth.

And, maybe one of you smarty-pants will be inspired and figure out how to answer this, or some other currently questionable(?) question

While I do not mind the appeal to my intellectual vanity, I am not so egotistical to think that I have the ability to figure something like this out.

First and foremost because it doesnt matter.

I do understand your opinion Khaos that it does not matter , but as with Free Speech , Free Will is presented to us as some kind of present that we cannot seem to be able to unwrapp , utterly fascinating , utterly timewasting , and therefore very irresistable to ponder over ...

Let's put it like this. Our understanding of classical and quantum electrodynamics is more than basic. The challenge to engineers is seldom anymore to figure out which things work and which don't. The difficulty lies in developing machines that cost fewer resources to produce and consume less energy per unit of desired output. Our understanding of the inner workings of the brain is so advanced that not only do we have medication to help those with malfunctioning brains, we are beginning to be able to reconstruct moving images from brainscans alone . It is in my opinion feasible that within the lifetimes of some of us things like technology-aided telepathy or a dystopian thought-monitoring network can in principle become a reality. This is not to say that neuroscience is not progressing anymore; rather what lay people like myself and most other users here deem to be deep mysteries yet to be resolved have for the most part been answered numerous times and in a multitude of levels of detail.
Matters of "free will" are not even questions and for all different reasons. In so far as some are willing to define what they are even talking about, nobody could identify it if they saw it. Questions like "Does free will exist?" or "How do we explain it?" make all the same sense as do questions like "Do apples yellow tomorrow?". The sheer magnitude of our understanding can hardly be overstated. Everything that makes us who we are maps to a finite set of bodily functions to the point that the soul is now completely out of gaps to be crammed into. The idea of free will nowadays only exists anymore as a gap so ill-defined that nothing could close it. In so far as it has been defined in even the vaguest of terms, it flies in the face of our intuitions an in the face of what we know.
So no, none of us smarty-pants are going to answer this conundrum somehow, because there isn't a thing to be answered. There just isn't even a "there" there...

Gisteron wrote: Everything that makes us who we are maps to a finite set of bodily functions to the point that the soul is now completely out of gaps to be crammed into.

I don't think it is so... linear, for want of a better word. Sorry if I've taken you out of context, its just a fun topic to throw around. So, I'd agree it serves as the basis, a ground representation, but not that it is the entirety of capability. I reckon abstraction occurs of that reference set and variations are processed as part of potentially non-deterministic decision making, subconsciously.

Anyway the point being that 'if' a system entertains randomness in its abstractions (if only by varying intensity of existing parts of the ground representation) to represent different representations for contrast against its ground representation, then it seems fair to consider that any decision making capability (operating prior to interaction with that ground representation to drive change) could likely have an argument for free will. I'm assuming randomness is not determinate beyond the limitations of its starting state and type of random effect - as to have none of either could explain delusion!!

So if its mediating that awareness of present self with abstraction for an expectation of future result in the environment, I'd say environment also add's enough randomness of its own to feed the chance of actual non-deterministic decision making. Sure perception of environment is seemingly filtered to some extent to meet our biological needs, but I think the decision making process between awareness and action is so slow compared to the process of maintaining self awareness, that its disjointed enough to give us enough room to distract ourselves from ourselves enough to convince ourselves we are our own self.
:S

limitations are a prerequisite for -- identity maybe, to keep it relevant

so, for example, just being a human being, requires one to not be a bird - there is a limitation in choice aka a limit of freedom just off the bat in order to exist as an independent entity (so far as we -or I- understand that)

so if there is any validity to the idea it has to be accepted as having implicit limits

so freedom or free will would not be the ability to take any and every course of action possibly conceivable, but rather to choose between the various options which still remain after recognizing our limitations

---

the experiment which began this discussion iirc postulated that we "change our memories after the fact" -- would it make a difference if we determined right now to make a particular decision under particular circumstances in the future?

like if i decide right now that i will definitely (or definitely will NOT) say "thank you" to the next person who posts in this thread, is that evidence of "free will"?

or is it enough at least to offer valid counter-point to the experiment?

MartaLina wrote:

Khaos wrote:

But, we are all here on this big blue ball anyway, so what's the harm in speculating?

Simply because there is no harm, does not mean it has any worth.

And, maybe one of you smarty-pants will be inspired and figure out how to answer this, or some other currently questionable(?) question

While I do not mind the appeal to my intellectual vanity, I am not so egotistical to think that I have the ability to figure something like this out.

First and foremost because it doesnt matter.

I do understand your opinion Khaos that it does not matter , but as with Free Speech , Free Will is presented to us as some kind of present that we cannot seem to be able to unwrapp , utterly fascinating , utterly timewasting , and therefore very irresistable to ponder over ...

Apparently for some.

i already said that in order to prove that i have free will i was gonna hit THANK YOU to the next post -
so i wanted to explain that, while i did get a smirk from Khaos's comment, I thanked it because i didnt..have...a....choice.....

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

https://youtu.be/cxFD5kSqzUw

If we do not have free will in our decisions what is determining what decisions we make? Is there some predetermination involved here? Are we saying that any decision we make is a foregone conclusion?

It's certainly an interesting study but I'm not sure that this demonstrates a lack of free will. There could be any number of reasons for people selecting correctly more than 20% of the time. It could be a flaw in the number of times a certain circle turned red. People could pick up on a pattern. There could be some level of precognition involved as someone else mentioned. It could just be dumb luck. There could be reporting errors involved. And I'm still not sure how this demonstrates a lack of free will even if people are choosing the correct circle up to 30% of the time. The person is still choosing a circle out their available options.

Lykeios wrote: If we do not have free will in our decisions what is determining what decisions we make? Is there some predetermination involved here? Are we saying that any decision we make is a foregone conclusion?

No. Determinism does not follow from us not having any agency.

It's certainly an interesting study but I'm not sure that this demonstrates a lack of free will.

Why does it need to? What about the idea of free will is so plausible as to put the burden of proof on those doubting it? As far as I know it was never demonstrated in the first place. I am not even sure there have been any noteworthy attempts at it.
Now, I haven't read the paper but if it is to be taken seriously at all we can expect it to be about a test for agency, not a test against it, what ever the latter even could entail. After all, finding evidence of free will, if it is indeed real, should be possible, at least in principle, as should be failing to do so. Yet, if it isn't, finding evidence for a lack of it would still be impossible. That's why we call it the default position, the null hypothesis, as it were. And that's why the burden of proof lies where it does.
Of course, all of that is pending an actual definition of agency, or free will, but again, I'm confident the paper does provide the one they were working with, if it be a study worth anyone's time...

Gisteron wrote: So no, none of us smarty-pants are going to answer this conundrum somehow, because there isn't a thing to be answered. There just isn't even a "there" there...

I hope you weren't offended, I like being silly, and "banter-esque"....

I was trying to compliment you in my own way...

And, not a "backhanded" one either, lol...

Khaos wrote:

But, we are all here on this big blue ball anyway, so what's the harm in speculating?

Simply because there is no harm, does not mean it has any worth.

And, maybe one of you smarty-pants will be inspired and figure out how to answer this, or some other currently questionable(?) question

While I do not mind the appeal to my intellectual vanity, I am not so egotistical to think that I have the ability to figure something like this out.

First and foremost because it doesnt matter.

As serious as you seem to be, you, and others (glancing around, lol) seem to enjoy batting around these topics too, lol....

Or else you'd not post here, .....

Maybe it matters, if only as a puzzle...

To your point, it doesn't mean it has worth... But, it could, as well....

Who knows what the future brings?



Were not many great breakthroughs crazy notions at first?

Conversations of "what ifs"?

Im sure many more (notions) have gone nowhere, than have turned fruitful, but how many times have "happy accidents" answered other questions/situations that they were not the focus of the train of thought?

We are thinking creatures, too much, sometimes, and even distracted thoughts, unimportant thoughts, those that don't matter to "us", matter somewhere/to someone...

OB1Shinobi wrote: the experiment which began this discussion iirc postulated that we "change our memories after the fact" -- would it make a difference if we determined right now to make a particular decision under particular circumstances in the future?

like if i decide right now that i will definitely (or definitely will NOT) say "thank you" to the next person who posts in this thread, is that evidence of "free will"?

or is it enough at least to offer valid counter-point to the experiment?

I don't know that we'll ever find a "perfect" answer....

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Wow , this one definitely is about the question and not about the answer :laugh:

Before proving the existence of ''free will'', we should first ask what it is exactly we are trying to prove...

What is free will? Is it the unlimited ability to do as one wills? The ability to say no? the ability to ignore ''external stimuli'' and do it anyway?


Or is it the ability to think, to make decisions, in a manner which is not limited, biased or otherwise influenced?

To this question the answer is obviously ''no''. We are easily influenced, subconsciously and consciously. We make different decisions, experience different moods as a result of minuscule biological changes. And most importantly we are limited ''by design''. One of the functions of the brain is to prevent the processing of large amounts of information (by he brain). This is because the brain is not capable of processing the information: Not only does the brain actively prevent you from accessing certain information, therefore introducing a bias, it's actually not capable of processing it anyway (It is limited). It is also ''wired'' in a way that favors certain thoughts or actions when certain conditions are met. Some behaviors are genetically coded and activated when certain stimuli occurs and this seems irreversible (the brain cannot un-grow). Which means our thoughts are never "free", but always the result of a biased and limited process.

So, instead of using ''destiny'' as an argument for or against proving the existence of free will, I think it's a lot easier to say that we don't have free will because we are not capable of having free will. We have a will, and a legal freedom to do or not do as other people would like(to a certain extent, and it varies).That's about it...