Free Will

[Alan Burns]

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.

Yes, I read this myself and was somewhat disappointed at the author's use of the concept of "ghost" rather than "soul".  Regardless of the terminology, what is being postulated here is a possibility that the explanation of human free will lies beyond the confines of that which can be defined by physically defined reactions to past events.  The fact that we cannot understand how it operates can't be used to deny the reality of its existence.

[Gordon]

Yes, I read this myself and was somewhat disappointed at the author's use of the concept of "ghost" rather than "soul".  Regardless of the terminology, what is being postulated here is a possibility that the explanation of human free will lies beyond the confines of that which can be defined by physically defined reactions to past events.

I don't think the author is viewing the 'ghost' idea as a possibility: it think the tone used suggests that it is a ridiculous notion. If you think otherwise you'll need to come up with some method that can detect these 'ghosts', show where the originate from and then explain how they operate in the affairs of humans.
 

The fact that we cannot understand how it operates can't be used to deny the reality of its existence.

That you concede you don't understand how these 'ghosts' might operate indicates that you aren't in a position to claim that they operate in 'reality' - you'll need to first demonstrate that they are 'real' before you can explain how the operate (and you need to avoid letting your personal incredulity get in the way of your thinking or falling into the dear old NPF).

[Stranger]

Regardless of the terminology, what is being postulated here is a possibility that the explanation of human free will lies beyond the confines of that which can be defined by physically defined reactions to past events.

Except the problem with 'free will' in the sense you've suggesting is, as has been pointed out to you endlessly, a logical one, rather than (or as well as) a physical one.

The fact that we cannot understand how it operates can't be used to deny the reality of its existence.

And your baseless assertions, extensive collection of fallacies, and feelings on the matter, cannot be used to support a logically self-contradictory concept - no matter how often you call it a 'reality'.

[torridon]

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

I've got a strong feeling this has already been covered elsewhere.  Any desire you have, conscious or not, has roots, has origins, it must derive from something.  If you form intentions or desires for no reason then you are just a random bot.  Is that what life is like for you ? I don't think that's true for me and I have no reason to suspect it true of other persons.  We all do things for reasons.

[Alan Burns]

I've got a strong feeling this has already been covered elsewhere.  Any desire you have, conscious or not, has roots, has origins, it must derive from something.  If you form intentions or desires for no reason then you are just a random bot.  Is that what life is like for you ? I don't think that's true for me and I have no reason to suspect it true of other persons.  We all do things for reasons.

Of course we do things for reasons.
The question at hand concerns the ultimate source from which the reason emanates.
Does the conscious self have the capacity to formulate the reason - and the reasoning.
Or is the conscious self just a consequence of past events which are beyond conscious control - we can't control the past.

[Stranger]

Of course we do things for reasons.
The question at hand concerns the ultimate source from which the reason emanates.
Does the conscious self have the capacity to formulate the reason - and the reasoning.
Or is the conscious self just a consequence of past events which are beyond conscious control - we can't control the past.

If something is the "ultimate source" of a reason, than it must happen for no reason (otherwise it isn't "ultimate") and somthing that happens for no reason is random.

You've set up another false dichotomy. The self is the way it is because of reasons (nature, nurture, and experience) none of which you can directly control. You are not 'free' to be somebody else formed by different nature, nurture, and experience and therefore want different things. It doesn't even make sense to be 'free' of being yourself.

In the end, as has been explained to you endlessly (and apparently pointlessly because you show no sign of being able to handle logic), we are free to do whatever we want to do most but we cannot change what it is that we want to do most - that's a product of who we are.

[Alan Burns]

If something is the "ultimate source" of a reason, than it must happen for no reason (otherwise it isn't "ultimate") and somthing that happens for no reason is random.

You've set up another false dichotomy. The self is the way it is because of reasons (nature, nurture, and experience) none of which you can directly control. You are not 'free' to be somebody else formed by different nature, nurture, and experience and therefore want different things. It doesn't even make sense to be 'free' of being yourself.

In the end, as has been explained to you endlessly (and apparently pointlessly because you show no sign of being able to handle logic), we are free to do whatever we want to do most but we cannot change what it is that we want to do most - that's a product of who we are.

You are still limiting your sense of logic to be defined by what is perceived in the observation of physically controlled material reactions.  You perceive that material reactions are predicted and defined by past events, and you extrapolate this to be applicable to all reality - even that which lies beyond our current understanding.  You somehow perceive time to be a separate entity which exists in its own right, but time is a property of this material universe.  Time began with the big bang.  The direction of time is defined by material changes.  Time will cease with the death of our material universe.  Can your deterministic logic be applied to whatever exists outside our material universe where time as we know it ceases to operate?  I put to you the possibility that the human soul exists in an ever present state of conscious awareness and can perceive and interact with the time dimension of our material universe.  Of course I cannot claim this to be a fact, but it is an example of thinking outside the confined box of a physically controlled deterministic system which denies me the freedom to think. 

[torridon]

Of course we do things for reasons.
The question at hand concerns the ultimate source from which the reason emanates.
Does the conscious self have the capacity to formulate the reason - and the reasoning.
Or is the conscious self just a consequence of past events which are beyond conscious control - we can't control the past.

Yes the 'conscious self', such as it is, must be a consequence of the factors that form it and we cannot control or change the past.  This is reality Alan. Apart from anything else, we now know from cognitive science that conscious awareness is not instantaneous, it takes a certain amount of time to form, so any 'conscious' response to events is strictly speaking a memory of a response already made.

https://theconversation.com/what-youre-seeing-right-now-is-the-past-so-your-brain-is-predicting-the-present-131913

[Stranger]

You are still limiting your sense of logic to be defined by what is perceived in the observation of physically controlled material reactions.  You perceive that material reactions are predicted and defined by past events, and you extrapolate this to be applicable to all reality - even that which lies beyond our current understanding.

Nonsense. It's a logical argument (remember >this<?) that applies to anything that changes over time - which our minds necessarily do.

You somehow perceive time to be a separate entity which exists in its own right, but time is a property of this material universe.

I don't perceive it as such and I know it is a property of the universe (strictly space-time is but I digress).

Can your deterministic logic be applied to whatever exists outside our material universe where time as we know it ceases to operate?

This is simply irrelevant because a functioning mind requires time. Specifically choice making, and hence any possible notion of free will, requires time because it requires change and if there is no time there can be no change.

I put to you the possibility that the human soul exists in an ever present state of conscious awareness and can perceive and interact with the time dimension of our material universe.

Just robotically and thoughtlessly repeating the meaninglessness phrase "ever present state of conscious awareness" is not going to suddenly make it mean something. It's as meaningless as saying "rodsensic yagmop tac" until you provide some logically meaningful (and non-circular) definition.

Of course I cannot claim this to be a fact, but it is an example of thinking...

No, it isn't even thinking - it's making up a meaningless phrase that sounds a bit like it might mean something in an attempt to get you out of hard logic. Thought, at least rational and logic thought, doesn't appear to have been involved at all.

...a physically controlled deterministic system which denies me the freedom to think.

Straw man. Both in the sense of "physically controlled" and in the sense that nobody is arguing that you aren't able to think whatever you want.

[Gordon]

Following on from the Guardian 'long read' article I posted a link to yesterday, there have been a number of letters in response making various points and challenges.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/29/the-battle-for-free-will-in-the-face-of-determinism

[Alan Burns]

This is simply irrelevant because a functioning mind requires time. Specifically choice making, and hence any possible notion of free will, requires time because it requires change and if there is no time there can be no change.

The conscious mind perceives time, but I question whether it requires time.  The functioning physical brain requires time to operate, but I do not see the conscious self as being part of such mechanistic material function.  The conscious self can certainly interact with the functioning brain to bring about acts of will, but what comprises the conscious self?

Just robotically and thoughtlessly repeating the meaninglessness phrase "ever present state of conscious awareness" is not going to suddenly make it mean something. It's as meaningless as saying "rodsensic yagmop tac" until you provide some logically meaningful (and non-circular) definition.

Why do you declare "ever present state of conscious awareness" to be meaningless?  It is where you exist.  It is your definitive "present". It is key to discovering your true self.

[Alan Burns]

Following on from the Guardian 'long read' article I posted a link to yesterday, there have been a number of letters in response making various points and challenges.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/29/the-battle-for-free-will-in-the-face-of-determinism

Thanks for this, Gordon.

I was particularly impressed with this comment which puts forward one of my own arguments, put with much better articulation than I am capable of:

The problem with the assertion that free will is an illusion is that it carries inescapable consequences for the ability of our intelligence to arrive at an adequation of the truth. Notwithstanding that education, cultural background and character affect our cognitive reasoning, to have any hope of knowing anything truly, we must be capable of objectivity and therefore, by definition, free in our thought to some degree. If we are always deterministically fated to be led down a wired neural pathway towards a conclusion that we cannot escape, we have no real basis for assuming that it bears any relation to the actual nature of things.

If free will is an illusion, then so is true knowledge. And this would then also apply to our capacity to know the true nature of free will. Is Oliver Burkeman not fatally determined to arrive at the conclusion he has, regardless of whether it is actually true or not? In which case, I’m not sure we can really say his conclusion is true.
Khalid Naqib
Chilton, Buckinghamshire

[Stranger]

The conscious mind perceives time, but I question whether it requires time.  The functioning physical brain requires time to operate, but I do not see the conscious self as being part of such mechanistic material function.

That's totally irrelevant. If something makes a choice then it changes (from being undecided to having decided), hence anything that can possibly have any sort of 'free will' requires time.

Why do you declare "ever present state of conscious awareness" to be meaningless.  It is where you exist.  It is your definitive "present". It is key to discovering your true self.

I really do suggest you get a check-up; if this is a genuine question then your memory is clearly very poor indeed. The present either doesn't exist in any meaningful way (exact sense of single moment at a single point) or is logically irrelevant (colloquial sense).

[Stranger]

I was particularly impressed with this comment which puts forward one of my own arguments, put with much better articulation than I am capable of:

The problem with the assertion that free will is an illusion is that it carries inescapable consequences for the ability of our intelligence to arrive at an adequation of the truth. Notwithstanding that education, cultural background and character affect our cognitive reasoning, to have any hope of knowing anything truly, we must be capable of objectivity and therefore, by definition, free in our thought to some degree. If we are always deterministically fated to be led down a wired neural pathway towards a conclusion that we cannot escape, we have no real basis for assuming that it bears any relation to the actual nature of things.

If free will is an illusion, then so is true knowledge. And this would then also apply to our capacity to know the true nature of free will. Is Oliver Burkeman not fatally determined to arrive at the conclusion he has, regardless of whether it is actually true or not? In which case, I’m not sure we can really say his conclusion is true.
Khalid Naqib
Chilton, Buckinghamshire

Impressed with a long-winded non sequitur - why am I not surprised?

[Alan Burns]

That's totally irrelevant. If something makes a choice then it changes (from being undecided to having decided), hence anything that can possibly have any sort of 'free will' requires time.

No.
That which invokes a choice is not what changes.  It is the perceived consequence of a choice which changes according to the desired outcome.

I really do suggest you get a check-up; if this is a genuine question then your memory is clearly very poor indeed. The present either doesn't exist in any meaningful way (exact sense of single moment at a single point) or is logically irrelevant (colloquial sense).

I do not need a scientific definition of "the present" to know that is where I exist.

[Alan Burns]

Impressed with a long-winded non sequitur - why am I not surprised?

As often happens in this forum, you claim something to be a fallacy without explaining why it is a fallacy.

[Stranger]

No.
That which invokes a choice is not what changes.

Oh do try thinking about this for once in your life! In invocation is an event, which also requires time - and change, from having not invoked something to having done so. This is just beyond stupid; you can't think, or act or choose, or invoke anything without time.

I didn't think it was even possible but your approach seems to have got even less logical, coherent, and reasonable than last time we had this sort of conversation.

It is the perceived consequence of a choice which changes according to the desired outcome.

Gibberish.

I do not need a scientific definition of "the present" to know that is where I exist.

This is beyond even the stupidity of "it seems that way so it must be that way". It doesn't even seem like we exist in "the present" in any meaningful way. We are constantly experiencing the passage of time. By the time we've finished a thought, the start is in the past.

[Stranger]

As often happens in this forum, you claim something to be a fallacy without explaining why it is a fallacy.

The writer seems to be confusing determinism with fatalism. There is nothing about determinism that precludes discovering the truth, there is nothing about it that stops us interacting with the world, making deductions, and drawing conclusions.

Additionally, "free will" in the sense that we could have done differently in exactly the same circumstances (without randomness, which obviously wouldn't help) is logically self-contradictory and hence impossible to even imagine - let alone assess its implications. A world in which free will in that sense exists isn't even conceivable - it simply doesn't make sense.

[Alan Burns]

The writer seems to be confusing determinism with fatalism. There is nothing about determinism that precludes discovering the truth, there is nothing about it that stops us interacting with the world, making deductions, and drawing conclusions.

So you keep claiming, but the question is  this - What controls the process of making deductions and drawing conclusions?  How can such control exist within our conscious awareness when everything we are aware of has already been determined by past events beyond our control?  We can't control the past - so where does the control exist?

Additionally, "free will" in the sense that we could have done differently in exactly the same circumstances (without randomness, which obviously wouldn't help) is logically self-contradictory and hence impossible to even imagine - let alone assess its implications. A world in which free will in that sense exists isn't even conceivable - it simply doesn't make sense.

It does not make sense because you seem to be stuck in the rut of thinking of all reality being defined by endless chains of mechanistic cause and effect with no feasible means of interaction.

[Stranger]

So you keep claiming, but the question is  this - What controls the process of making deductions and drawing conclusions?  How can such control exist within our conscious awareness when everything we are aware of has already been determined by past events beyond our control?  We can't control the past - so where does the control exist?

In a functioning brain or mind if you prefer (which may or may not include a soul if we are totally open-minded about it). None of which, however, can possibly involve the self-contradictory idea of free will as the ability to have done differently without randomness - which is as illogical as a square circle.

And, no, you don't get to redefine the word 'control' to mean your favourite, self-contradictory fantasy.

It does not make sense because you seem to be stuck in the rut of thinking of all reality being defined by endless chains of mechanistic cause and effect...

It doesn't make sense because it's self-contradictory, for reasons that have been explained to you countless times by several people.

...with no feasible means of interaction.

More gibberish.   

Obviously you didn't take the time you've been away from this subject here to do any rational thinking about it or study deductive logic - so I guess asking you for the "sound logic" you so often claimed you had is still a total waste of time....?

[torridon]

So you keep claiming, but the question is  this - What controls the process of making deductions and drawing conclusions?  How can such control exist within our conscious awareness when everything we are aware of has already been determined by past events beyond our control? 

It doesn't exist, really, it is a cognitive illusion.   The experience of 'control within our conscious awareness' is a memory.  The experience of 'control' is not something happening in real time.  'Real time' does not 'really' exist.  See Albert E. for details. Our minds construct a handy perception of 'now' but it is not a physical reality.

[Alan Burns]

It doesn't exist, really, it is a cognitive illusion.   The experience of 'control within our conscious awareness' is a memory.  The experience of 'control' is not something happening in real time.  'Real time' does not 'really' exist.  See Albert E. for details. Our minds construct a handy perception of 'now' but it is not a physical reality.

I fully agree that the "now" is not a physical reality and that any physical source of control must only exist as a memory - which is precisely why I believe my fundamental ability to exert control of my thoughts, words and actions must derive from a non physical source, which defines the spiritual reality in which I perceive and act.

The only alternative would be to believe that your entire post was composed in your sub conscious before you were aware of it - and the act of belief itself would also have been a sub conscious act - which effectively renders such belief to have no credibility.

[torridon]

I fully agree that the "now" is not a physical reality and that any physical source of control must only exist as a memory - which is precisely why I believe my fundamental ability to exert control of my thoughts, words and actions must derive from a non physical source, which defines the spiritual reality in which I perceive and act...

I don't exert control over my thoughts in the sense of there being a distinction between 'me' and my thoughts as if they are separate entities. That's not how it works. We don't consciously choose which thought to think next, rather, thoughts arise in mind, emerging out of the flow of mental activity, sensations, impulses. I see no reason to invent some non-physical entity to act as some master-procurer of thoughts, it adds no value to understanding how minds work, in fact it only invites a shed load of far bigger conceptual problems that then require additional explanation.

[torridon]

The only alternative would be to believe that your entire post was composed in your sub conscious before you were aware of it - and the act of belief itself would also have been a sub conscious act - which effectively renders such belief to have no credibility.

Again, that is not how mind works. Nobody composes an entire post from start to finish in subconscious mind before then releasing it into conscious mind. It's not as if we all have two entirely separate minds and we are consciously managing the interface between them.  Rather what happens is that words are being procured from memory as I work my way along a sentence, on a 'just in time' manner.

The validity of a belief does not relate to the issue of conscious/non conscious mind.  it is just a matter of fact that we do most of our intense cognitive work whilst awake.  That doesn't mean that lower levels of mind are somehow excluded from cognitive processes.  In fact, sometimes we make breakthroughs in understanding whilst not being awake at all.  This is why, when faced with a challenging problem to solve, we often say we'll 'sleep on it' - and in the morning, the solution is often clear - our minds have clarified a complex issue overnight without any conscious input whatsoever.  That doesn't mean that the solution is invalid.

[Stranger]

I fully agree that the "now" is not a physical reality and that any physical source of control must only exist as a memory - which is precisely why I believe my fundamental ability to exert control of my thoughts, words and actions must derive from a non physical source, which defines the spiritual reality in which I perceive and act.

The quaint and naive little fantasy story you tell yourself about how your mind works, which doesn't stand up to the slightest bit of logical thought or even the smallest attempt at honest introspection, does not constitute a reason to believe in the "non-physical", doubly so as the problems with it are logical and experiential rather than anything to do with the physical world.

The idea that 'you' exert control over your thoughts is also laughably silly - how do 'you' decide what your thoughts are going to be, by thinking about it perhaps?

The only alternative would be to believe that your entire post was composed in your sub conscious before you were aware of it...

Glaring non sequitur. The role of consciousness is entirely unconnected.

...and the act of belief itself would also have been a sub conscious act - which effectively denies such belief to have any credibility.

And yet another non sequitur - are you trying to see how much illogical nonsense you can cram into the fewest possible words? You have established no credible (!) connection between consciousness and credibility.