Free will or lack of.......

[the village idiot]

34 minutes ago, Vespasian said:

sounds like the fella knows what he's talking about to me.. not sure were pantheism comes into it...

anyways why I popped in....

 

always nice to get a refresher to remind oneself whats being got at..   trouble with free will is you think on it for an hr or two and get it all, and half hr later it goes away again..  I keep telling myself that it doesn't matter as its not really a subject that concerns me in any great way.. But it keeps popping back in my mind making me think it really does matter, or aught matter....

 

anyways a short vid i came across to give some people a refresher, only ten minutes long...

 

 

 

 

 

Nice overview there Vesp. Hadn't seen that chap before.

 

You don't even need the conclusions of the Libet and Soon experiments to do away with free will. The raw logic of cause and effect over time also leaves free will with nowhere to stand.

 

I agree it is a very slippery concept to get a grip on for any length of time, mainly because our strong sense of having a decision making self tends to muscle it's way back in. But it is a truly fascinating subject.

 

As was pointed out earlier in the thread, those that struggle to even entertain the idea of no free will are generally those most firmly attached to their ego's. This is not their fault, but hopefully this thread might rattle around in their subconcious and give them some space from the ego in the future. It is a good way to be.

Edited January 3, 2018 by the village idiot

[TIMON]

sounds like the fella knows what he's talking about to me.. not sure were pantheism comes into it...
anyways why I popped in....
 
always nice to get a refresher to remind oneself whats being got at..   trouble with free will is you think on it for an hr or two and get it all, and half hr later it goes away again..  I keep telling myself that it doesn't matter as its not really a subject that concerns me in any great way.. But it keeps popping back in my mind making me think it really does matter, or aught matter....
 
anyways a short vid i came across to give some people a refresher, only ten minutes long...
 
 
 
 
 

Pantheism- the belief that everything will eventually “pan out” anyway. [emoji41]

[Mortimer Firewood]

44 minutes ago, tree-fancier123 said:

i was going to like your post - but now i know the dangers my new years resolution is to use the like button sparingly

No please do I’m no where near my daily likes I’ll not be able to sleep tonight otherwise.

[tree-fancier123]

20 minutes ago, Mortimer Firewood said:

No please do I’m no where near my daily likes I’ll not be able to sleep tonight otherwise.

I'm losing sleep over FB too - shares went as low as $18 in 2012, up to $181 now. I looked at it at the time and passed on it - and life has passed me by:(

 

[Mortimer Firewood]

16 minutes ago, tree-fancier123 said:

I'm losing sleep over FB too - shares went as low as $18 in 2012, up to $181 now. I looked at it at the time and passed on it - and life has passed me by:(

 

Just think if you had put that $18 into bitcoin in the beginning it would be worth over $20k now

[onetruth]

5 hours ago, the village idiot said:

Wow! And there was me thinking I was pushing the boat out!

Are you able to describe this God in any meaningful way? Can you explain how things like our bodies or trees or vacuum cleaners are 'in no sense real'?

No, but I'll try anyway...

 

I'll start with the second question, how things are "in no sense real".  Let's take "vacuum cleaners".  You haven't chosen a particular vacuum cleaner, so you might mean one of two things: either all vacuum cleaners, or a generalised idea of the vacuum cleaner (as a concept).  Assuming you mean all vacuum cleaners, again you could mean different things by this: all vacuum cleaners throughout that physically exist at the moment, all vacuum cleaners throughout history, all vacuum cleaners past and future.  So let's suppose you mean all vacs from all time: do you include those that are designs on paper, props in sitcoms, words in a book, ideas in someone's head?  The term is imprecise, perhaps fatally ambiguous - it doesn't actually refer to anything real. 

 

Ok, maybe I'm underestimating you - instead you are looking at a particular vac by your computer as you type.  That object has many properties, depending on how you consider it.  It is functional (it sucks up dust).  Except it isn't on, so by that measure, it couldn't be considered a real vac.  It is a particular configuration of the component parts.  Except that you would still think of it as a vac if those components were in a slightly different arrangement, so that cannot be its essence.  Indeed, at the atomic level the components are undergoing constant change.  The boundaries of the vac and everything else are undefined by you (or anything else for that matter).  Beyond the quanta, the vac is a manifestation of various wave functions.  This area of physics is something I just do not understand, except to say that wave functions transcend space-time: if the reality of the vac exists at this level, its existence is identical to that of everything else in the universe - it is the same function (set of functions?).  The idea of the vac, however, clearly originated somewhere - you thought it, you typed it, something must exist.  That something is you.  That you is all that exists; I call it God.

 

Your other examples (our bodies, trees) could be substituted for vacs.  I think, so too could abstract things like me/others/concepts/truth/mathematics/logic - any distinct "thing".  They are apparently real, at least in some sense.  But the reality is actually that appearance, not the apparent "thing"; the reality is not the object, but the subject.

 

Science, religion, philosophy and day-to-day life do not present us with truth, rather with useful (or not so useful) models which our minds can use to interact with the world.  They are functional tools, but not reality.  

 

Meaningful way to describe God: easier to say what God is not.  God is not some Uber-King ruling/creating the world.  God does not love the good and hate evil, dictate morality or pass judgment.  (Except that, for all of these things, it can sometimes be useful to imagine that there is a god which has these properties).  God is that which illuminates the world.  The source of beauty, love, truth, wonder - things that could never be reduced to an algorithm or chemical process.  Our own consciousness, which is unchanging and disinterested.      

[onetruth]

4 hours ago, Rough Hewn said:

Dude you are sooo bishop Berkeley.
Just need a crimson sack and a silver thread.

Have heard interesting things about him, but not someone I'm familiar with.  After reading your post I checked on the In Our Time website and there is indeed a podcast available.  That's my listening sorted for tomorrow's bath-time, thanks!

[onetruth]

5 hours ago, Mortimer Firewood said:

I’m also interested in how you see God. 

It’s a concept I struggle with. 

Spinoza had a rather elegant solution: he simply equated God with nature, and in one deft move alienated theists and atheists alike.  

 

Edit: he also had an interesting take on the Free Will problem, which I can't remember any more.

Edited January 3, 2018 by onetruth

[WesD]

If there was no free will why would your brain let you find out?

 

It is conning you after all into thinking there is and patting you on the back surely if your brain was 100% automated it wouldn’t allow you (essentially as there is no you) to find out that it doesn’t exist. 

 

Does it take free will to discover there is no free will?

[the village idiot]

46 minutes ago, WesD said:

If there was no free will why would your brain let you find out?

 

It is conning you after all into thinking there is and patting you on the back surely if your brain was 100% automated it wouldn’t allow you (essentially as there is no you) to find out that it doesn’t exist. 

 

Does it take free will to discover there is no free will?

The brain is 100% automated in it's output moment to moment. It has no control over what it's inputs are going to be. It is blindly genetically programmed to develop the 'self illusion' and the associated illusion of free will as a consequence. This software will chugg along indefinitely until the brain is exposed to new inputs (such as this thread) which contradicts the status quo, As a direct result of the new inputs the strength of neuronal connections in certain areas of the brain might change as the brain 'checks' this new info against all the other patterns and biases it has developed. The more the brain experiences a 'free will input' the stronger these connections will get, resulting in more thinking about it arising in conciousness.

 

The brain has no agenda whatsoever. It just does exactly what it can with precisely what it has in any given moment. It is not trying to keep us ignorant of the illusion of free will. It has no idea what free will is, or what anything else is for that matter. It is just a fleshy walnut filled with billions of staggeringly well connected neurons and electricity. Until there is any input to the contrary the illusion of free will will be maintained (this is all that can happen). If a 'no free will' input arises it increases the chances significantly of some 'no free will' outputs, but in no way guarantees them. It will entirely depend on what your brain does with the information and any subsequent information that leads from it.

 

So in other words no, it doesn't take free will to discover there is no free will.

 

It would be nice to think that we can decide for ourselves whether free will is an illusion or not, but essentially we can't! This is somewhat ego depleting but also fascinating