Free Will

[Sriram]

Coming back to my post at 41 above....I have been bringing up many subjects precisely because they point to exotic aspects of our world. These areas if integrated, could lead to a better understanding of what we today call as spirituality... and the physical world. 

The artificial separation of the world into the natural and the supernatural is absurd. The spiritual aspects merge into the physical and mental realities in a continuum. 

[Stranger]

Coming back to my post at 41 above....I have been bringing up many subjects precisely because they point to exotic aspects of our world. These areas if integrated, could lead to a better understanding of what we today call as spirituality... and the physical world. 

For starters, they don't integrate. For example, many of the different ideas about consciousness that you've brought up contradict each other. What you post here is a hotchpotch of different ideas, that you often fail to understand yourself, that range from scientific conjectures, philosophy, to absurd woo. The only common factor being that you think that they point to something you desperately want to believe. Things really don't become more likely to be true just because you want them to.

The artificial separation of the world into the natural and the supernatural is absurd. The spiritual aspects merge into the physical and mental realities in a continuum.

The correct division is between those things we have some real evidence for, speculative ideas that can't yet be tested but are based in reason or what we have already discovered, and those that have no evidence and are based on nothing but blind faith, wishful thinking, or a deliberate or accidental misrepresentation of what is known.

Nothing is changing or can change about this. There is no 'new science' that is going to make any difference. If you want to learn about objective reality, you need to rely on objective evidence. You need testability and falsifiability.

[Enki]

Ha! Ha! Ha!....

What is cherry picking about....NDE's, phenotypic plasticity, epigenetics, unconscious mind, Copenhagen Interpretation of QM, anthropic principle, panpsychism, cosmopsychism, IIT, biofield, subjective nature of reality etc., that I bring up every now and then? (I have added a few more that you missed).

These are the areas that hint at the exotic nature of life and the universe. These point to those areas where, if we bother to understand and  integrate them, we could have a better understanding of our mind, consciousness and life itself.....instead of the same rigmarole of convoluted 'explanations' born of scientism.   

No, I didn't miss them, Sriram. I simply wanted to save you further embarrassment by limiting the number of areas that you have dabbled in with your rather sticky fingers.

However as you have brought them up, I feel obliged to remind you of some of the problems:

A) NDEs - All you have are anecdotal accounts. Yes, they undoubtedly happen, but When it comes to validation of your pet theories, you have nothing of any substance.  Indeed,
a person who has experienced a genuine NDE, has gone through three main stages:
1) Consciousness in the moments before losing consciousness. At this point there is brain activity
2) Unconsciousness, which may include a period when brain activity flat lines
3) Consciousness in the moments following No 2. Again there is obviously brain activity
This whole event is a process, and there is no evidence that NDEs are only or even a phenomenon related to No 2.

B) Phenotypic plasticity - see http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=17486.0  where your vague meanderings where brought to an abrupt halt by someone who has actually studied the subject(ProfessorDavey). See replies 15, 18, 23 and 30 in particular.

C) Epigenetics - see http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16546.0 where you were challenged on your ideas by several posters, including one  very pertinent one in reply 5.

D) Unconscious mind - a fact that is very well known and has been discussed in great detail on several threads, especially involving Alan Burns. As NTTS succinctly put it in reply 2 on this thread  in relation to 'free will' :
" As the endless discussion in the "Searching for God" thread shows, many people want to define it more along the lines of being able to have done differently (without any difference being random) which is simply incoherent."

E) Copenhagen Interpretation of QM - which is itself open to interpretation and, in the light of further experiments and discoveries, does not substantiate the idea that measurement has to be done by a conscious entity. You also fail to mention other more modern interpretations.

F) Anthropic principle - basically a very vague, non scientific idea(it can't be falsified) which doesn't necessarily imply even human life. Even its weaker form is no more than self evident(that the current Universe is of the form that allows intelligent observers.)

G) Cosmopsychism - an hypothesis, as is the idea of multiverses which could give some credence as to why we live in a universe which seems to be fine tuned but isn't.

H)  IIT - even its proponents(Koch and Tononi) do not attribute consciousness indiscriminately to all things. "For example, if there are no interactions, there is no consciousness whatsoever. For the IIT, a camera sensor as such is completely unconscious…" (Tononi, 2008). You also seem to ignore the reasoning of critics such as the philospher, Searle or the computer scientist, Scott Aaronson.

I) Biofield - I simply refer you to the thread on Biofields(which you started)
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=18038.0 and refer you to my response(Post 17) which you, very predictably, took exception to. Seems it's a classic case of you wishing to cherry pick, rather than take into account all that the article actually said.

J) Subjective nature of reality - I would direct you to the thread entitled  'tree in a forest' (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16937.0) where the whole subject was discussed in some detail, and in which you met a range of views which didn't quite correlate with your own(I'm being kind). I direct you to replies by Jeremy(reply 23), Nearly Sane(reply 31), Bluehillside(replies 41 and 49), NTTS(replies 46 and 82), Gordon(reply 51), Outrider(replies 60 and 94), Bramble(replies 67 and 71)

K) Although you didn't mention this, I would also add 'Evolution'. I refer you to the thread(that you started) entitled 'Evolvability'and would point you in the direction of a reply by NTTS(post 15) in particular.

What seems to come through in all these threads is not that you are necessarily wrong, but that you have an inclination to ignore or to be averse to criticism and to learn from it. Far too often you seem to retire into your own closed personal position often without thinking through valid points made by others but simply carrying on regardless. I say that as a person who is not devoted to 'scientism' a term which Blue makes clear, and ask you again:
What method and reasoning would you use to convince me that your views hold merit? I basically asked you that in post 40, but, so far, you don't seem to be able to give an answer.

[Sriram]

Well....you can see what I meant by microscopic thinking....

Thanks guys!

And thanks enki for keeping track of my old posts and threads. Feels nice!

[Stranger]

Well....you can see what I meant by microscopic thinking....

Yes - you mean all the inconvenient facts about your own rather sloppy and clearly biased thinking.  This has been somewhat obvious for some time. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Scientism is scientific principles applied inappropriately or over enthusiastically.

Yes, I’m fully aware of what “scientism” means – the point though is that you weren’t. When in Reply 44 I suggested you look it up so you’d stop making the same mistake, you replied in 45 with the wrong definition. It’s good that you’ve finally (apparently) grasped what the term actually means, but you might at least have the good grace to acknowledge the correction.   

Which you do all the time.

And now you’ve resorted to flat out misrepresentation, Vlad style. I have never espoused scientism – to the contrary I’ve explicitly and repeatedly made clear that it’s not a position I hold. You really should withdraw that falsehood, though I don’t suppose you will. 

It is a perception problem.

No it isn’t. The real problem is that you really, really want some things to be true but you have no means to justify your belief that they are true. Rather than confront the problem honestly your tactic is to criticise science for something it makes no claims to, then to inflate speculations, pseudo-science and plain wishful thinking into evidence for your fantastical claims. These things “point to”, “hint at” etc your truth claims only in the sense that Norse paganism “pointed to”, “hinted at” etc Thor causing thunder.

That’s your problem remember?   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism#:~:text=Scientism%20is%20the%20promotion%20of,determine%20normative%20and%20epistemological%20values.

"The term scientism is generally used critically, implying an unwarranted application of science in situations considered not amenable to application of the scientific method or similar scientific standards."

Congratulations for getting there in the end. Can you now see why neither I nor anyone else here does that?

Oh, and how about addressing your major problem that, if science can’t justify your truth claims, you have nothing at all to put in its place that can?

[ekim]

SR <quote>The spiritual aspects merge into the physical and mental realities in a continuum.</quote>
Stranger <quote>If you want to learn about objective reality, you need to rely on objective evidence. You need testability and falsifiability.</quote>
enki <quote>What method and reasoning would you use to convince me that your views hold merit? </quote>

A comment on these extracts from recent posts.

From the point of view of 'mystics' from a variety of countries the 'spiritual' methods tend towards inner stillness so that consciousness is realised as being free from both the external objective world and the inner subjective condition of the psyche.  To engage in 'spiritual' speculation, pursuit of objective evidence and reasoning only agitates the psyche and becomes counter productive to the 'spiritual' method.  Religious persuasion, which often resorts to a carrot and stick approach e.g. heaven and hell, reincarnation into upper and lower conditions, similarly tends to be counter productive.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Well....you can see what I meant by microscopic thinking.... 

Yes we can, only we see what you mean by it better than you do. What you actually mean by it is something like, “thinking that does not justify the various truth claims I make, but I have no alternative thinking that can do that job either”.   

Thanks guys!

You’re welcome.

[Gordon]

Interesting (and long) article on 'free will' in today's Guardian: I haven't read it all as yet, but it seems worth a read for those interested in this subject.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/apr/27/the-clockwork-universe-is-free-will-an-illusion   

[SusanDoris]

Interesting (and long) article on 'free will' in today's Guardian: I haven't read it all as yet, but it seems worth a read for those interested in this subject.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/apr/27/the-clockwork-universe-is-free-will-an-illusion

Thank you for posting the link. I've listened all the way through and found it very interesting. Whatever the exact answers are, we as a species have very successfully survived so far thinking we have free will, so I reckon we should just go on understanding that the science will increase understanding of how our brains function but that if we just continue as normal, then we should be all right!.

[Nearly Sane]

Thank you for posting the link. I've listened all the way through and found it very interesting. Whatever the exact answers are, we as a species have very successfully survived so far thinking we have free will, so I reckon we should just go on understanding that the science will increase understanding of how our brains function but that if we just continue as normal, then we should be all right!.

We've survived very successfully believing in gods so fat so do you reckon we should just continue as normal?

[SusanDoris]

We've survived very successfully believing in gods so fat so do you reckon we should just continue as normal?

Ah, but that is in spite of believing in God, I think!

[Alan Burns]

Interesting (and long) article on 'free will' in today's Guardian: I haven't read it all as yet, but it seems worth a read for those interested in this subject.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/apr/27/the-clockwork-universe-is-free-will-an-illusion

Just take this quote from the article:
It’s that the experience of possessing free will – the feeling that we are the authors of our choices – is so utterly basic to everyone’s existence that it can be hard to get enough mental distance to see what’s going on.
In that one sentence lies the evidence for the fact that our consciously driven freedom is a reality, not an illusion.
The processes invoked in our ability to "get enough mental distance to see what’s going on"  goes far beyond the trivial example of choosing between a banana or an apple.  In short, our ability to contemplate the existence of free will is in itself ample evidence for the existence of free will.  The difficulty highlighted in this article arises from trying to find an explanation for free will within the confines of existing human knowledge.  Our knowledge of reality is limited by what our human senses and man made equipment can detect, and it is foolish to presume that such limited human knowledge can be used to conclude that our freedom to choose is an illusion.  The consciously driven mental acrobatics needed to reach such a conclusion would be impossible if the conclusion was true - therein lies the paradox.

[Stranger]

Just take this quote from the article:
It’s that the experience of possessing free will – the feeling that we are the authors of our choices – is so utterly basic to everyone’s existence that it can be hard to get enough mental distance to see what’s going on.
In that one sentence lies the evidence for the fact that our consciously driven freedom is a reality, not an illusion.
The processes invoked in our ability to "get enough mental distance to see what’s going on"  goes far beyond the trivial example of choosing between a banana or an apple.  In short, our ability to contemplate the existence of free will is in itself ample evidence for the existence of free will.

"It feels that way, so it must be true" is just as mind-numbingly stupid as it always has been and you clearly still don't have the first clue what evidence means.

The consciously driven mental acrobatics needed to reach such a conclusion would be impossible if the conclusion was true - therein lies the paradox.

What paradox? You never have been able to support this utterly silly, reasoning-free assertion.

[torridon]

Just take this quote from the article:
It’s that the experience of possessing free will – the feeling that we are the authors of our choices – is so utterly basic to everyone’s existence that it can be hard to get enough mental distance to see what’s going on.
In that one sentence lies the evidence for the fact that our consciously driven freedom is a reality, not an illusion.
The processes invoked in our ability to "get enough mental distance to see what’s going on"  goes far beyond the trivial example of choosing between a banana or an apple.  In short, our ability to contemplate the existence of free will is in itself ample evidence for the existence of free will.  The difficulty highlighted in this article arises from trying to find an explanation for free will within the confines of existing human knowledge.  Our knowledge of reality is limited by what our human senses and man made equipment can detect, and it is foolish to presume that such limited human knowledge can be used to conclude that our freedom to choose is an illusion.  The consciously driven mental acrobatics needed to reach such a conclusion would be impossible if the conclusion was true - therein lies the paradox.

There's only a paradox to explain for people who insist they have free will whilst understanding it is an inherently illogical concept.  Once people understand that we act on our desires, such as they are, but do not choose which desires to have, the paradox vanishes, there is nothing of significance requiring explanation. That's the trouble you buy for yourself by importing on irrational concepts into your world view.  'God' being another example.  Once God vanishes from your worldview all the contradictions that come with God based thinking, they all vanish too.

[ekim]

1. ... In short, our ability to contemplate the existence of free will is in itself ample evidence for the existence of free will.  The difficulty highlighted in this article arises from trying to find an explanation for free will within the confines of existing human knowledge. 

2. ....Our knowledge of reality is limited by what our human senses and man made equipment can detect, and it is foolish to presume that such limited human knowledge can be used to conclude that our freedom to choose is an illusion.

1.    It could also be said that the ability to contemplate the existence of free will is evidence of the existence of the concept of free will.

2.    As you have done in the past, this is an example of confusing 'free will' with 'free choice'.  They are not really the same.  Also your idea of freedom seems to imply absolute freedom, something usually reserved for the God with absolute power that you worship.

[Alan Burns]

1.    It could also be said that the ability to contemplate the existence of free will is evidence of the existence of the concept of free will.

2.    As you have done in the past, this is an example of confusing 'free will' with 'free choice'.  They are not really the same.  Also your idea of freedom seems to imply absolute freedom, something usually reserved for the God with absolute power that you worship.

Yes, a god given gift which nature alone could never provide.
Free will - driven by the ever present state of your conscious self rather than the inevitable uncontrollable consequences to past events.

[Alan Burns]

There's only a paradox to explain for people who insist they have free will whilst understanding it is an inherently illogical concept.  Once people understand that we act on our desires, such as they are, but do not choose which desires to have, the paradox vanishes, there is nothing of significance requiring explanation. That's the trouble you buy for yourself by importing on irrational concepts into your world view.  'God' being another example.  Once God vanishes from your worldview all the contradictions that come with God based thinking, they all vanish too.

But the consciously driven act of understanding defies the simplistic logic of pre determined consequences to past events.

[Alan Burns]

"It feels that way, so it must be true" is just as mind-numbingly stupid as it always has been and you clearly still don't have the first clue what evidence means.

what is mind numbingly stupid is the presumption that our limited current human knowledge can be used to deny the reality of your freedom to make such a presumption.

[torridon]

But the consciously driven act of understanding defies the simplistic logic of pre determined consequences to past events.

Maybe it feels that way, but there is no evidence for it, is there ?  Any 'understanding' that was not derived from the experiences that led to it would be a random state of mind. A random state of mind could not be 'understanding'.

[Stranger]

Yes, a god given gift which nature alone could never provide.

Baseless assertion.

...ever present state of your conscious self...

Incoherent gibberish.

But the consciously driven act of understanding defies the simplistic logic of pre determined consequences to past events.

Another baseless assertion.

[Stranger]

what is mind numbingly stupid is the presumption that our limited current human knowledge can be used to deny the reality of your freedom to make such a presumption.

Nobody is denying freedom in that sense.

[Gordon]

Just take this quote from the article:
It’s that the experience of possessing free will – the feeling that we are the authors of our choices – is so utterly basic to everyone’s existence that it can be hard to get enough mental distance to see what’s going on.
In that one sentence lies the evidence for the fact that our consciously driven freedom is a reality, not an illusion.
The processes invoked in our ability to "get enough mental distance to see what’s going on"  goes far beyond the trivial example of choosing between a banana or an apple.  In short, our ability to contemplate the existence of free will is in itself ample evidence for the existence of free will.  The difficulty highlighted in this article arises from trying to find an explanation for free will within the confines of existing human knowledge.  Our knowledge of reality is limited by what our human senses and man made equipment can detect, and it is foolish to presume that such limited human knowledge can be used to conclude that our freedom to choose is an illusion.  The consciously driven mental acrobatics needed to reach such a conclusion would be impossible if the conclusion was true - therein lies the paradox.

Here's another quote, Alan: where the "ghostly presence separate from the material world yet mysteriously still able to influence it" sounds a lot like your 'soul' notion but, as is also noted in the quote below, the problems then are a) where is this 'ghostly presence/soul' is located, and b) explaining how it operates - and of course you've failed to offer any coherent explanation for either of these two issues.

To have what’s known in the scholarly jargon as “contra-causal” free will – so that if you rewound the tape of history back to the moment of choice, you could make a different choice – you’d somehow have to slip outside physical reality. To make a choice that wasn’t merely the next link in the unbroken chain of causes, you’d have to be able to stand apart from the whole thing, a ghostly presence separate from the material world yet mysteriously still able to influence it. But of course you can’t actually get to this supposed place that’s external to the universe, separate from all the atoms that comprise it and the laws that govern them. You just are some of the atoms in the universe, governed by the same predictable laws as all the rest.

[Alan Burns]

Maybe it feels that way, but there is no evidence for it, is there ?

Reality perhaps?  But not if you try to modify reality to fit in with what can be defined by human knowledge.

Any 'understanding' that was not derived from the experiences that led to it would be a random state of mind. A random state of mind could not be 'understanding'.

What is understood is certainly derived from past experiences.
But the same cannot be said for the actions which initiate and drive the process of conscious understanding.
Do you have conscious control of the process - or is your conscious awareness just a spectator to the consequences of past events beyond your control?

[Stranger]

Reality perhaps?

We are still waiting for the slightest hint of an argument from you as to why reality requires free will in the sense you mean... and waiting..... and waiting..... and waiting..... and waiting..... and waiting....

What is understood is certainly derived from past experiences.
But the same cannot be said for the actions which initiate and drive the process of conscious understanding.

Baseless assertion.

Do you have conscious control of the process - or is your conscious awareness just a spectator to the consequences of past events beyond your control?

False dichotomy.