Do You Know That You Have NFW? ( ie. 100% GED )

Post Reply New Topic

Well, yeah, if that's what you mean, of course we aren't omnipotent beings with free will.

Free will, and the will to be free? topic

Words are slippery little widgets. In my life there are some choices I can make. In the end when you do some act, it is a choice, unconscious or not. I have always tried to be conscious of the choices I make, and try to predict the consequences. I do the best I can with the information I have. In my life, in my little niche in the world, within my own limitations, I can select from the available options.

At this moment in time, I will be free and engage in the freest will possible. If the OP chosses to interpret my words in a different way, then perhaps we have a debate.

I think that adopting the mindset that everything is determined can be self destructive. However, on the other hand, I'm of the opinion that everything is predetermined. Our brains, however complex, exist in the realm of the physical, and operate as per the rules of physics by which all matter and energy are governed. These numerous micro functions our brains perform might initially give the appearance of decision or "will", however, that is not so.

The only way to have a free will is to exist beyond the reach of natural laws and thus exist outside of anywhere.

The viewpoint I have is even more concreted once one looks at it from the point of view of time. If I am presented with two options, both perfectly decent viable options. I'll always pick the option I ended up picking. If I choose option A, that's because I was always going to pick option A, it just hadn't become obvious yet, because everything that was leading up to that moment was already in motion, and much like a well oiled machine, played out exactly as it did. Because it was always going to, it just hadn't yet.

Tomorrow is going to happen the way you remember it the next day. You just don't know how to remember it yet.

~NS

A the quantum level, reality is NOT deterministic.

The laws of quantum physics are based on probabilities.

ruveyn

A the quantum level, reality is NOT deterministic.

The laws of quantum physics are based on probabilities.

ruveyn

Bull. Whatever happened five minutes or even a split second ago was what was going to happen, always. Just because you cannot measure explain or predict it doesn't mean it's random. It means we are limited in our understanding.

True, but the laws of quantum physics are completely separate from the physical laws we apply to aubstances on the atomic level and beyond. On the atomic level, the quantum theory does not apply because on an atomic level and beyond, what is found at the quantum level has no real effect. It's just there.

Detachment of an appropriate kind and extent is certainly a competency that can facilitate better "free will" skills.

You seem to make some assumptions that you are not explicit about. For instance you refer here to being praiseworthy, but the existence of free will or its absence in my view does not determine the utility or rationality of praise or blame. Certainly some people might view a correlation between the two as a matter of their personal opinion, but I do not percieve that the existence of such opinions necessitates their correctness.

We are unable to confirm that at the size you are referring to (micro/quantum) that the appearance of determination that we seem to observe at larger sizes, holds true.

Some scientists have suggested that micro tubules that exist in neurons might be the source of "consciousness" (or an intermediary between such a source and the embodied state of our selves) and if this is the case then it is entirely plausible that our consciousness is not more determined and is as prone to superposition states as Schrodengar's cat. If this is the case (and it is certainly not proven) then in effect, our act of observing ourselves would resolve the superposition states into a single state and in essence our self-aware observation would play a role in facilitating a single state (outcome). There is no way at this point to rule out such a role as determining between probabilities.

So according to the current knowledge we (humans) have access to, it is not implausible that at any moment, there are a range of probabilities all simultaneously true and untrue, and that self awareness by observing, not only resolves this range of probabilities to a single actuality, but also determines which of the probabilities becomes actual. If this is the case then it would in my view not only be a non-predetermined process, but it would also be arguably very real free will. The catch that might be is what causes the observation to settle the probability one way rather than another, but if we follow the full implications of the above, it is not necessarily true that anything other than prior self-determination through self observation is the cause. On a quantum scale, so far as we can tell, information can arrive remotely or from nowhere at all since it is only probable that information will not materialize from nowhere.

You might speculate that there is some actual determination in effect and we merely lack data points, but no one has yet been able to produce evidence that this is actually the case. It is merely your guess or your intuition that there is determination at quantum levels and while this is not irrational on your part, it is not necessarily consistent with reality. Maybe you are right, or maybe you are wrong, or maybe you are both and neither of these things simultaneously until you observe yourself in some respect.

Do you mean that self-awareness, simply by existing, has this effect?

Does it make any difference what or how much we are "aware" of?

If it makes no difference ( to the resulting "single actuality" ) what kind/extent/quality of self-awareness someone has what use is it to anyone? In what way could it be said to be a skill?

If the kind and extent of our self-awareness does make a difference, ( to the resulting "single actuality" ), is it within a human's power to change the quality/nature and direction of their self-awareness in order to produce different single-actualities?

If a person can change the quality/nature/extent of their self-awareness, is this change something within their control? Is the nature/quality/extent of our self-awareness "determined" or not?


I don't understand this.

.

It's plausible (although I am not making a statement that it is the case).


To our "self will" (according to my view of what self will is), yes. In respect of quantum physics, it appears not unlikely.

That is not necessarily (currently) answerable.

If you take the view that perhaps consciousness may not necessarily reside in our physical brains but is merely linked to our physicial brains through micro-tubules in neurons (utilizing quantum entanglement to exchange information between remote locations), then our self awareness as embodied beings may be only an aspect of a greater self awareness existing and willing from somewhere else (or everywhere else, or nowhere else, or somewhere, nowhere and everywhere else simultaneously). The "remote" awareness could conceivably have comprehensive access to the awareness localized at our embodied state/self, while the embodied state may be more restricted receiving only partial information in return. So the selves localized as our embodied selves might not sense the fullness of ourselves or our will and how it effects our embodied "localized" selves.

Of course all this is rather speculatory (to put it mildly).
Certainly. This is true even without looking at quantum scale. One aspect of our functioning is plasticity of brain and neuro-process, and this plasticity can be intervened in by ourselves, utilizing self-awareness to evaluate ourselves and intentionally alter our neuro functioning and our the physical state of our brains using our own self aware thoughts.

Well if you accept (for the sake of a mental exercise) that consciousness exists beyond our localized brains and merely communicates to our localized selves through the intermediary of micro-tubules then there is no reason to presuppose that determination is involved as at quantum scale we cannot find evidence that physical reality is determinative rather than merely probabilistic. If it is probabilistic, then it's not necessarily true that anything is determined, it may just tend to appear to be that way to our limited embodied observational perspective.


I am not confident I am the best person to explain it (or even if I myself have fully grasped the intended premise which is not my own).

In essence (so far as I have understood this idea and its possible implications) it is plausible on the basis of current evidence accessible to us, that our consciousness does not exist in our brain, or is not restricted to existing in our brain. Our brains might be communicating with a consciousness that is not localized to our brain, utilizing quantum properties such as quantum entanglement (for the exchange of information). It might appear to some localized element or aspect of consciousness that we are localized as the sum of ourself within our brain but this could be illusory and a (potentially physically) remote more informed consciousness may be sending stimulus information to our brain remotely. What its awareness and extent of 'freedom of being" is, we could only at this time guess at, so we cannot rule out that it is something with complete freedom that uses its freedom to choose to limit your/my/our localized (in our brain) knowledge (and event the fact of the brain-localized state of consciousness). It (the non-"brain localized" consciousness) might be wholly undetermined by anything but itself for all we can observe (currently) and a more true self than what may merely be a minor componenet part of what would be our wider consciousness.

That's not the size I was referring to. Micro =/= Quantum. But, you made an assumption that it was, possibly to tie into the rest of what you had to say. But, what is ironic, is that it was predetermined. The simple truth is obvious yet ignored. It was going to happen, because it did happen. All the pieces of the puzzle where in exact alignment to converge on that very moment you mistook what I was referring to. It was always going to happen, it was destined to happen, the simple reason, because it happened.

How can/does a person go about changing the nature/quality and extent of their self-awareness though, so as to "alter [ their ] neurofunctioning"? If self-awareness is like a spotlight illuminating parts of our mental functioning, ( an illumination which automatically/inherently alters/influences our functioning ), who or what is it directing the spotlight? Who or what determines the strength, and focus, of the light? And if self-awareness is non-deterministic, how can "we" do anything about ( the strength, focus etc, of ) our self-awareness?

As I see it either someone will decide to change their awareness as a result of data from their environment and/or genes, and be enabled/able, ( or disabled/unable ), to do so as a result of environmental and genetic factors, or the business of changing one's self-awareness is the "result" of non-determinative processes. And as I don't understand how we could be said to have any meaningful control over non-determinative processes I don't see how this supports the argument for the existence of free will. It appears to be a circular argument.

I believe that the nature/quality and extent of our self-awareness has an effect on the rest of our mental ( and even physical ) processes but I think that someone will only "do" something about the nature/quality and extent of their self-awareness if caused to by their environment and/or genes ( and/or a "quantum hiccup" which they have no control over either ).


I can see why Stuart Hameroff ( who I found out is probably the most prominent exponent of this theory ) called one of his articles " Being the Skunk at an Atheist Convention".

But I rather like Ted Honderich's reaction to the the microtubule argument for non-determinism in his paper/review "Consciousness and Microtubules" at: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/conscious ... ubules.htm

NB. Some excellent discussion of consciousness, determinism and freedoms at Honderich's website at: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/
.

Last edited by ouinon on 10 Dec 2009, 8:42 am, edited 3 times in total.

If you refer to a nucleated cell, then you refer to cytoplasm, ribosomes, mitochondria, DNA etc, whether or not you had these things in mind. The physical reality of the brain and brain processes you refer to cannot exclude the "really small stuff" that comprises it. So you might not have had this really small stuff in mind, but you certainly could not have failed to refer to it if you referred to the larger stuff it comprises.

So you claim, but I doubt you can prove it.


There are a variety of techniques. "Thought" orientated techniques rely on thinking thoughts, "action" orientate techniques rely on behaving.

In my view that depends entirely on the individual's competency in "free will", although if the premise described earlier (entailing micro-tubules) is correct, then arguably our non-"brain localized" selves might do this.

In my view the strength and focus is determined by the level of skill one has. See above as for the quantum micro-tubules premise.

Whether or not self-awareness is deterministic we can improve on a skill by exercise, practice and technique improvement. Just as whether or not how fast we run is deterministic and yet either way can be increased through exercise, practice and technique improvement.

I am not sure why determination really matters either way. Since our self-awareness exists and is therefore an environmental factor, if the environment (including genes) is determinative, then self-awareness is an influence in any such determination and this is the scope for free will in that instance. If the universe is non-determinative, and the best evidence (to date) for this lies at the quantum scale then we cannot exclude the possibility that our selves are not actually localized in our brains and the that the aspect of ourselves localized in our brains is merely an offshoot of a self that knows more and has freedom possible to will itself including the self localized in our brains.

Let us assume A is free will. Let us assume that A can only exist if certain requisites occur first. The requisites occur. Does A then not exist because it can only exist if the requisites occur first? Whether or not free will is caused determines whether it exists, not what it does or how it operates once it is extant. This is why I view free will as a skill. It varies from person to person and like any other skill is caused by prior causes and can be both improved on or denigrated. But none of this means it cannot exist, and once it exists it is an environmental constituent, ergo a factor in its own ongoing causes. The scope of its freedom lies in being an agent of its own determining environment.


They look like interesting links; I'll check them out later.

Where exactly in the sequence we have been talking about do you believe the "free will" is?

Everything is either determined, by genes or environment, ( of which self-awareness is a part ), or it is non-determined ( and acted on/"collapsed into a single actuality", by the "determined" self-awareness ).

Neither of these, separately or together, seem to allow for anything which I, or the dictionary definitions, would call "free will". There is apparently "freedom" of the non-deterministic kind, but over which "we" have no control, except with the self-awareness whose quality/nature and extent is determined by genes and/or environment, or there is "will", ( the capacity and desire to practice, exercise, etc the techniques of self-awareness ), which is determined by genes and/or environment, and in which there is no place for freedom.

I don't understand "where" you see the free will existing.

It seems to me to be a perpetually circling cycle ( rather like the yin and yang mandala in fact ... ), of a ( genetically and environmentally ) determined thing, ( our self-awareness ) acting on, by "collapsing into single actualities", the non-determinist ( not otherwise under our control either ) quantum level of events.

The fact that self-awareness ( the "eye" which is the "I" ) may well be a possibly unique passage ( in this direction ... ) between these two "dimensions"/layers of very differently organised activity is very interesting, exciting even, but does not appear to me to constitute free will.

.

The part where one exercises agency by making self-aware choices.


Or some other thing we have not conceived of is the case.
Either way, it is my view that self-awareness of making choices, including the potential to review choices and choose to make choices of a different quality on future occassions is what people who have historically referred to when they use the phrase "free will". In my view this is most certainly something that does exist; I have personally experienced it.

You personally posted online dictionary definitions that are quite consistent with what I have described above.


What is freedom as you are using above? Some supernatural thing that actually does not exist at all? If you are not free to flap your arms and fly are you really free? If you are not free to rape and murder your neighbour's children, are you really free? In most peoples' view, possibly. What kind of freedom do you have in mind that agrees with conventional definitions where one can be "free" without being permitted to do anything whatsoever, whenever, however?

And again "free will" is a phrase that has been coined and become conventional to refer to a particular thing. Whether or not it is a good literal description does not prove whether or not that thing exists.


By reference to my own experimence.

It really does not matter how it comes to be.

You seem to think that free will must be literally free in some kind of supernatural way, rather than something that has been called free will for potentially historical and cultural reasons. Plenty of things are poorly named but still exist.

You seem to think that a determined universe cannot determine that things will have free will that happens to be part of the determining fabric of existence. There is no proof whatsoever that genetics and biology cannot create something that is self aware and free to form preferences as per its nature, nor any reasons to assume that being as per one's nature, however determined it may be, is something contrary to freedom. None of these assumptions have been given any argument that I find compelling. Why do you assume they must be true?

I do not think that your statement free will does not exist means anything more meaningful than you are not omnipotent. And actually you cannot even be certain that's true. Perhaps you are omnipotent, but choose to not allow a lesser part of yourself that seems to be ounion to know that, for the purposes of acquiring the experience of being ounion who does not know she is only a part of her actually omnipotent self.

This change of direction/line of argument or defence, of asking "What is "freedom" anyway"? What does "free" actually mean?", and arguing that free will was never "historically" anything more than some very restricted kind of freedom anyway, ( a reaction which Honderich calls "intransigence" ), does seem to be pretty much inevitable/essential if want to carry on believing in some form of "free will" at all.

"Freedom to form preferences as per one's nature" as an argument for the existence of free will?

Where is the "freedom" in "forming preferences according to one's nature", ( ie. the freedom to do as genes and environment direct me to do )? What does "freedom" mean in that context?

I do not, in fact, "assume" that "Being as per one's nature, however determined it may be, is something contrary to freedom". But it depends entirely on how one defines "freedom".

If freedom is doing what genes and environment direct us to do, then obviously we all have free will.

But I do not think that is what most people mean by "free will". For most/many people it means that they, and, most importantly, other people, can, ( and therefore very often should ), change their nature.

.