RichardY Posted December 7, 2016 Posted December 7, 2016 Freewill is an Illusion and so is the State. I'd go further and say that they could also be considered forms of religion. Determinism also an illusion. Why are they illusions? They can not be measured. If they can not be measured, do they exist? I reminded of a discussion a while a go about the distinction between things that can be said to be "real" like various shapes, Triangles, Circles, Squares etc vs something that can be said to "exist" such as physical mass. Could Real be substituted in for illusion, in some cases? For something to be "real" would it have to be a shared illusion?
villagewisdom Posted December 7, 2016 Posted December 7, 2016 Interesting thought project. Though it led me nowhere and did nothing for the cultivation of myself as a human being, it was still fun and entertaining. The mass hysteria of the left after the election is a "real" thing and a shared illusion. But does it exist? How can it be that things are "real" and an illusion at the same time? It exists as long as people believe it exists. If an experience exists long enough, it takes on life of its own and history is written to reflect it. 500 years from now, what will people believe is true about 2016 and the historically recorded hysteria after the 2016 election? The people are real for sure. The events recorded are real? And so a belief system is created and takes on a life of its own. What about truth? Is that a belief system, an illusion, or a religion? Or is it something else entirely? 2516's truth might overturn 2016's truth. Are any experiences we have as humans real? Or are they all simply mind constructs? Am I a figment of my imagination?
dsayers Posted December 7, 2016 Posted December 7, 2016 We need to define our terms if the discussion is to be a productive one. What does real/exist mean? Comprised of matter and energy? Illusions exist in our brain, though what they are an illusion of does not exist, hence the word illusion. What does can be measured mean? Does that mean there is a unit of measure assigned to it, with a tool to determine amount of units present? Let us assume for the sake of argument that free will is valid. As it is a concept, is "can be measured" even consistent language? You cannot measure a forest, though you can measure an aggregate of trees. How do you measure a concept? What does religion mean? I haven't heard a lot of propaganda regarding free will. It was a provocative claim by you with no accompanying rigor. 1 1
A4E Posted December 7, 2016 Posted December 7, 2016 Dsayers has a very good point right off the bat, in that we need to define terms. Definitions not being agreed on is 99% of the pointlessness. I wanted to chip in even before Dsayers, but this topic is also outlawed here, (Which is why I am not looking to discuss) Everyone have their own definitions of these words. For example: (I dont want to use too much time to fine edit so don't take it too seriously) A free willer might say that "Free will is the ability to make a decision from a multitude of choices (offered), There are many possible outcomes for the future hanging on these decisions." Such a definition requires that everyone agrees that the universe is inherently not deterministic and can be altered in many ways, (not just one), generally by humans. A compatibilist might say that "Free will is the ability to make a decision from a multitude of choices, with many possible outcomes hanging solely on the decision, but this process will still follow the laws of the universe." Such a definition requires that everyone agrees that the universe is not yet fully known, and that generally humans are special creatures able to circumvent universal laws without violating them." A determinist might say that "Free will is the idea that a decision can be made (generally only) in the brain of humans that has a potential for many different future outcomes for the universe, meaning that the laws of the universe can be violated." Such a definition also requires that everyone agrees that the universe is 100% controlled by laws, including everything that comprise of a human, and so is in effect deterministic. A religious person might say that "Free will is the ability given to us to be able to choose good from evil, to follow the guidance of the creator, or reject him and suffer the consequences." Such a definition requires that everyone agrees that the universe is controlled by a creator, and so is unpredictable. These statements are only the tip of the iceberg, and the complications and mixing of all of these things can really make some horrid forum threads, which is probably a part of the reason these kind of discussions have been outlawed here.
Boss Posted December 7, 2016 Posted December 7, 2016 https://www.technologyreview.com/s/420511/quantum-entanglement-can-be-a-measure-of-free-will/
luxfelix Posted December 8, 2016 Posted December 8, 2016 https://www.technologyreview.com/s/420511/quantum-entanglement-can-be-a-measure-of-free-will/ Related: https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51EJeeRRbiL._SX332_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
RichardY Posted December 8, 2016 Author Posted December 8, 2016 Existence- has mass, can be theoretically separated into atoms, photons etc. States of matter can be measured by various senses. Real-can be subdivided and communicated? You can subdivide a triangle, a square, a sphere... Illusion-can not be subdivided. Christianity(generally Freewill focused), Islam (Deterministic), A Dream, Capitals of countries, A person?, Sherwood forest. A picture of 5 birch "Trees"(stems), when in fact they maybe the same tree(suckers). Freewill - Seems to revolve around choice and past reflection. Just because Freewill is an illusion doesn't mean that I don't find it potentially useful to reflect, is a dream real? What is the driving force behind freewill, sure you can say you have a choice, but to what end? Or continuation? Do you exist? To which I could reply yes I exist. Though I am reminded of an English pianist, who was not able to remember what happened 5 minutes a go but could still play the piano, could people suffering from dementia, Alzheimers, short term amnesia be said to have freewill. Does freewill only "exist" because there are other sentient beings of comparable intelligence to compare thoughts with. Religion- A belief to act in accordance with something with no null hypothesis.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted December 8, 2016 Posted December 8, 2016 I think you can measure free will. That's why we can hold people morally responsible.
neeeel Posted December 8, 2016 Posted December 8, 2016 I think you can measure free will. That's why we can hold people morally responsible. how?
HasMat Posted December 9, 2016 Posted December 9, 2016 You define existence as matter. Real existence is not just matter-information. Matter-information is one element. There are 3 at least. 1) First Cause (freewill)-morality 2) space-time3) matter-information What follows from the hyphen is the emergent nature of the element. Morality is the contrast between moral agents. Time is the contrast between loci as a matter of sequence. Information is encoded in matter, as contrast between matter. There are 5 types of behavior of the elements recognized by physics, although they only try to account for 4 as forces/laws (omitting spatial expansion). The reason there is no 'theory of everything' of the remaining 4 is because 1 of them is trans-elemental, while the other are intra-elemental. Within matter, the 3 forces are electro-magnetism, weak, strong. Matter acting on matter. Between space and matter (transelemental) is gravity. Between First Cause and space is spatial expansion. Between matter and First Cause is moral growth (or decay). Being incarnate in flesh enables consciousness of moral propositions and power to act relative to propositions. Science knows of 5 types of phenomena, but is only even trying to explain 4. It's kinda funny, but its probably just the result of them feeling helpless relative to First Cause, which is tangled up in spatial expansion. It's the current year...how has physics not inclusively examined observable phenomena in a real 'theory of everything', with distinction by element? Instead we get flying spaghetti monster, dark matter, and attacks on theism. All non-falsifiable. Space is measurable with a yardstick. Time is measurable with a clock. Matter is not the only thing in existence. It is the most raw and tangible for sure, but subtler elements precede it. If matter is all we are, then moral agency is a farce. Within matter (intra-elemental forces), all outcomes are predetermined by electro-magnetism, weak, and strong. This is the blatant end-conclusion of monism. For us to exist, we must have an immaterial unique non-transferable basis of agency. Meat robots are not agents, they are mechanisms. They are not growths by law, they are creations by artifice. Creations trace their faults to their creators. Agents must be self-predicating: I am that I am. JHVH. We are our own creators, we must be our own creators if responsibility is desired. How can this be if we were born mere years ago? We must have caused that before our birth, negotiated by our spirit. Now we are a soul, a ghost in the shell. First Cause is outside the monism model. First Cause happened. Monism is deception. It does not fully represent the reality we are part of. Epistemologically, First Cause is an analytically-derived necessity. Really, that is good news for anyone who loves virtue. It means we exist, moral growth is possible, and our actions matter (no pun intended). Moses says before light, that the spirits of gods moved on the face of the deep. Then First Cause happened, and the hosts had some clay to play with. Jesus says 'we are gods'. We must be our own creators. It's necessary to being a moral agent. Some fool has to take responsibility for your creation (and the ensuing faults), who? "Growth by Law" conserves the essence of a thing, increasing or decreasing it. Changes happen from within, regardless of external events. "Creation by Artifice" uses a recipe, and like a shoelace, can ultimately be undone and reversed by external causes. There is a quote that goes something like "He who thinks he has been wronged does not fully understand". If we are Growth by Law, then this is 100% correct. It means our essence cannot receive tort, and only changes by how we wield it.
DCLugi Posted December 9, 2016 Posted December 9, 2016 Gravity. The greatest illusion of them all. (Jumps off bridge) Ouch!! That ground is pretty f#*king real.
RichardY Posted December 9, 2016 Author Posted December 9, 2016 Gravity. The greatest illusion of them all. (Jumps off bridge) Ouch!! That ground is pretty f#*king real.
RichardY Posted December 9, 2016 Author Posted December 9, 2016 There are 5 types of behavior of the elements recognized by physics, although they only try to account for 4 as forces/laws (omitting spatial expansion). The reason there is no 'theory of everything' of the remaining 4 is because 1 of them is trans-elemental, while the other are intra-elemental. Within matter, the 3 forces are electro-magnetism, weak, strong. Matter acting on matter. Between space and matter (transelemental) is gravity. Between First Cause and space is spatial expansion. Between matter and First Cause is moral growth (or decay). Being incarnate in flesh enables consciousness of moral propositions and power to act relative to propositions. Science knows of 5 types of phenomena, but is only even trying to explain 4. It's kinda funny, but its probably just the result of them feeling helpless relative to First Cause, which is tangled up in spatial expansion. Wow, quite a few potentially voluminous topics. I've heard of something called "Dark Matter" mentioned in a few science documentaries, I guess that's perhaps tied up in spatial expansion. Very quickly the thread seems to have become a theoretical physics discussion. Personally most of my understanding is from the odd science documentary. I know Einstein covered Gravity in his Theory of General Relativity, though I have no Idea if other fundamental physical forces were incorporated into some Unified Field Theory by Einstein. Were you pointing out a theological difference between Christianity and Judaism or perhaps Jehovah Witness? If someone were to take the position they were created by God and not perfect, what does that say about God? There is also the question of evolution. I wonder if it is possible to bring empirical information to proving freewill? Are word games essentially sufficient? Fairly heavy mind blowing subjects.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted December 13, 2016 Posted December 13, 2016 We measure free will when we evaluate whether someone is morally responsible for something. For example, the insanity defense is a measure of whether the person was insane when committing the crime. If they were insane then they can't logically be said to be acting of their own free will. This is particularly clear in type of insanity defense called volitional insanity or irresistible impulse.
RichardY Posted December 17, 2016 Author Posted December 17, 2016 We measure free will when we evaluate whether someone is morally responsible for something. For example, the insanity defense is a measure of whether the person was insane when committing the crime. If they were insane then they can't logically be said to be acting of their own free will. This is particularly clear in type of insanity defense called volitional insanity or irresistible impulse. So someone with less capacity to refrain from doing something immoral for some personal desire, could be said to have less freewill than a person with a greater capacity to refrain from committing an immoral or criminal action? What about in a survival scenario like the guy who got trapped in a canyon, Aron Ralston and had to cut his arm off. Could he be said to be exerting greater freewill by doing so, than by "deciding" to succumb to the elements.
Magnetic Synthesizer Posted December 17, 2016 Posted December 17, 2016 I don't even think it's an illusion, it's a mistaken concept. Whatever you experience can be conceptualized ot be perfectly consistent with reality. 1
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted December 18, 2016 Posted December 18, 2016 So someone with less capacity to refrain from doing something immoral for some personal desire, could be said to have less freewill than a person with a greater capacity to refrain from committing an immoral or criminal action? What about in a survival scenario like the guy who got trapped in a canyon, Aron Ralston and had to cut his arm off. Could he be said to be exerting greater freewill by doing so, than by "deciding" to succumb to the elements. I guess it's possible. Although animals sometimes chew their limbs off to escape traps. He could have chosen to suicide by cutting his wrists rather than face the agony. So saying he HAD to cut his arm off is not correct. The animal would not have had the capacity to project such futures. This suggests the animal is acting purely on instinct but the human has some free will. But such extremities tend to remove our free will and we fall back on our animal instincts.
RichardY Posted December 18, 2016 Author Posted December 18, 2016 I guess it's possible. Although animals sometimes chew their limbs off to escape traps. He could have chosen to suicide by cutting his wrists rather than face the agony. So saying he HAD to cut his arm off is not correct. The animal would not have had the capacity to project such futures. This suggests the animal is acting purely on instinct but the human has some free will. But such extremities tend to remove our free will and we fall back on our animal instincts. Yeah, HAD to doesn't seem correct, he could have at least of imagined other options. A) hang in the canyon waiting to die. B) choose to speed up the process of death. C) Attempt to free himself causing perhaps significant pain. D) Call for help. Maybe in the end A becomes more painful than C. Like balancing a scale. Maybe Freewill isn't so much an illusion, as an ability. Could ability be said to be an illusion? At the least an ability seems to be more than, the sum of its parts.
Kikker Posted December 19, 2016 Posted December 19, 2016 Yeah, HAD to doesn't seem correct, he could have at least of imagined other options. A) hang in the canyon waiting to die. B) choose to speed up the process of death. C) Attempt to free himself causing perhaps significant pain. D) Call for help. Maybe in the end A becomes more painful than C. Like balancing a scale. Maybe Freewill isn't so much an illusion, as an ability. Could ability be said to be an illusion? At the least an ability seems to be more than, the sum of its parts. Free will is an abstraction of something we observe. The same way you just abstracted the decision making process of another human being as a balancing scale. The whole point of an abstraction is to ignore properties of the real thing until you are able to understand the concept. In this way any abstraction is an illusion since the only thing which accounts for all properties is the thing itself. We measure accuracy of an abstraction by its usability in the context where the abstraction is used. For example abstracting atoms as solid matter has it's uses when you're interacting with the world at a human scale. If you observe closer though, (or farther) that abstraction turns out to be false. 1
Lawrence Edwards Posted December 21, 2016 Posted December 21, 2016 Freewill - Seems to revolve around choice and past reflection. Just because Freewill is an illusion doesn't mean that I don't find it potentially useful to reflect, is a dream real? What is the driving force behind freewill, sure you can say you have a choice, but to what end? Or continuation? Do you exist? To which I could reply yes I exist. Though I am reminded of an English pianist, who was not able to remember what happened 5 minutes a go but could still play the piano, could people suffering from dementia, Alzheimers, short term amnesia be said to have freewill. Does freewill only "exist" because there are other sentient beings of comparable intelligence to compare thoughts with. I think you have something here. Free will is related to our ability to reason. How about this: Free will is our ability to reason and to explain why we do things. An animal has limited free will, it doesn't understand why different choices can be made and cannot explain those choices. A powerful android that could reason on our level and explain why different choices should be made would have free will. A scientist can explain choices - can even predict the future - this is the ultimate expression of free will. Religion is the opposite of free will.
M.2 Posted December 21, 2016 Posted December 21, 2016 Religion is the opposite of free will. It is indeed funny you say that, since the very term of "free will" was coined by the Jews (yachid), then adopted by the christians, since they simply had to have a Word in order to explain why we are free. You will also find that no other form of religion has the term. (that includes Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism...). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will Yes, the Greeks and the Romans meddled with the stuff, but like in many cases, they never got to the end of it. I also find it relieving that while atheists and materialists discuss this stuff from the ground up, I already have a Church to give me the answer. You will most certainly find this a very good read: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1083.htm
A4E Posted December 21, 2016 Posted December 21, 2016 An animal has limited free will, it doesn't understand why different choices can be made and cannot explain those choices. How do you know this? Is it because animals have not explained their choices to us humans? Then I'd like to see a human explain his choices... to an animal.
os.motic Posted March 18, 2017 Posted March 18, 2017 Freewill is an Illusion and so is the State. I'd go further and say that they could also be considered forms of religion. Determinism also an illusion. Why are they illusions? They can not be measured. If they can not be measured, do they exist? I reminded of a discussion a while a go about the distinction between things that can be said to be "real" like various shapes, Triangles, Circles, Squares etc vs something that can be said to "exist" such as physical mass. Could Real be substituted in for illusion, in some cases? For something to be "real" would it have to be a shared illusion? Concepts aren't "real", they don't exist in the physical world. However you don't say that forests, shapes, pens, every label we have for a thing is ~real because it can't be measured.
RichardY Posted March 18, 2017 Author Posted March 18, 2017 Is poison not a real concept? If an entity can't be measured, has no limits. How can it be said to be real?
Recommended Posts