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

Post Reply New Topic

I believe we do not have free will. My view is that well there is no destiny or fate. You cannot predict or know what or where anyone will be in twenty years, that is impossible. However that in any given situation in your current state of mind with your life experiences there is only one possible reaction you can take, however your sense of "being you" hides it and makes you think it was your choice.

So if you learnt a LOT about how a person thinks you could predict their behaviour in a given situation quite accurately.

Mentalism is also related, the aspect of reading body language.


Of course there are obvious ways to tell, we are after all animals just trying to survive.

If you were on a city street when suddenly the ground started shaking/there was an earthquake, what would you do?
Try to find safety...

If you didn't have the social skills to impress an employer in a high profile company, even if you had excellent potential to thrive there, could you choose to work there?

We can't all be president/king/caesar/etc. It's a matter of luck and circumstance to even get an opportunity.

Some smells can influence our behaviour without us ever realising it, pheromones.

Its not entirely true people choose a partner, Its because you and them were there, in the right situation. In a different situation you may never have met.

Hell do you even choose what foods you like? You can have a favourite food but why? Your brain says it tastes good, independently of your ""free will".

Did you really ever choose to even like blue M&Ms more than green ones? Or sock colours, what ever.

Can you really describe any situation that was entirely free will and not something that arose from your situation/environment and your current state of mind?

There is no change in direction at all, merely a change in wording. My question about what you are invisioning freedom as being drives at the same point I have been driving at when I have repeatedly stated that if what you mean is that you are not supernatural and omnipotent, then this is not much of a revelation.

When one describes a country as "free" do you think they mean anyone can commit murder and no one will seek to bring them to justice for this? Freedom in practice, in what circumstances has ever meant "without any constraint or limitation whatsoever"?

It means being an agent, making choices. I do not understand what aspect of this is confusing to you.

I did not suggest freedom is doing what genes and environment direct us to, but what I suggest is that being caused by environment (including ones own genes) is not nessarily contrary to "free will" including a couple of the definitions you personally posted.

Really? You seem to think most people believe in free will though. So are you suggesting that all these people are utterly ignorant and have never heard of either nuture or nature? I suggest most of these people have indeed heard of these things and considering that some of the dictionary definitions you offered are consistent with it, I fail to see why you would find this unlikely. What do you think most people mean by free will? That they are omnipotent Gods? Do you also think most people believe being free means being allowed to rape and murder their neighbour's child without repurcussion is they so desire? I think few people take such a literal and black and white interpretation of the phrase (and the word and concept of freedom generally) as you seem to believe they do.


They can ouinon; I thought I had already covered this?

All living things, including bacteria and plants, are agents and make choices. Do you mean that all living things have free will?

I am having trouble understanding in what way the "thing" which you call "free will" is any different from simply "being alive", and in which case what purpose it ( the concept "free will" ) actually serves.

The only purpose that I see it serving is that of justifying the sort of attitude which sees genetically and environmentally determined lack of understanding, for instance, as someone's "fault". The word "ignorant" is a good example of how belief in free will manages to make something which is the result of environmental factors outside someone's control into something blameworthy.
.

Last edited by ouinon on 14 Dec 2009, 11:25 am, edited 2 times in total.

Are they agents? An agent is not just a thing that behaves, but is rather a thing that is aware that it behaves. What evidence is there that bacteria are actually aware that they exist, and are bacteria? What evidence is there that such creatures are aware of making choices, and can evaluate their choices and form preferences about their choices and preferences about their preferences about their choices, and further can choose to change the kinds of choices they make, and even intentionally and mindfully set about changing aspects of their preferences?

Maybe these things are true of bacteria, but what evidence is there that this is the case?

I am having trouble understanding why you assume that being alive would necessarily entail such attributes as the potential to intentionally change one's own nature in a self aware manner. I do not know that my tomatoe plants can do these things, even though I am confident that they are alive. I see no reason to assume that being alive and being not only self-aware, but also able to employ self-awareness to facilitate self change, are identical states. It seems quite conceivable and quite plausible to me that things may be alive without having these attributes.

One does not need "free will" to exist to blame and moralize ounion. I think you will find that people who do not believe in free will do not necessarily refrain from blaming and moralizing by virtue of that belief.

Last edited by pandd on 14 Dec 2009, 11:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

Is that right? So a "cleaning agent" is a real misnomer then!

.

It's a different use of the word entirely. I am using the word as it is applied in social science and anthropology, not as it is applied in the "hard sciences" or in marketing. I do not see how this would have been unclear given the context I have been using "agent" in from the first use I have made of it in this thread, not to mention its employment in one of your posted definitions of free will.

So, according to you, free will is the attribute of a creature that is "aware of making choices, and can evaluate their choices and form preferences about their choices and preferences about their preferences about their choices, and further can choose to change the kinds of choices they make, and even intentionally and mindfully set about changing aspects of their preferences" and has "the potential to intentionally change its own nature in a self aware manner".

Why, according to you, does self-awareness mean that a creature has free will?

You have failed to explain satisfactorily how self-awareness, which is determined by genes and environment, can be altered by someone independently of genetic or environmental influences. You yourself have said that anything else is supernatural.

How can someone change their self-awareness, ( and thus impact on/alter the "single actuality" outcome of the superpositional actualities/potentialities at quantum level ), unless or because environment and genes have influenced/caused them to do so, ( practice meditation or other self-awareness training exercises, etc )?

If you have no control over the exercise, extent, or power of your free will, how can you be said to have any? Unless it is like a talent distributed unequally among the population, like being able to draw; some people have more than others. Or like a fluent second language, something which some people are lucky enough to acquire as a result of being brought up bilingually.

.

Your free will seems to me to be a "privilege" which some people are lucky enough to be born with lots of, and others are lucky enough to be brought up with lots of, rather like wealth, or intelligence. Not in fact universal among humans, and definitely not equally distributed.

You described free will, in your very first post on this thread, as a "skill", as if a person can "use and/or develop" it, and I can see what you mean if free will is like a talent, but that doesn't change the fact that we are entirely dependent on our genes and the environment for the use we make of any talent that we may have been "given" by birth or upbringing.

How do you know/measure/decide how much free will a person has and therefore how much they, or their environment, "could do better/otherwise"? And is the concept of free will useful, if only environment or genes are "to blame" for someone not having, using, or developing this "skill"?
.

Last edited by ouinon on 14 Dec 2009, 12:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

And I'm not at all clear in what way the free-will that you describe differs from "self-awareness". Is there a difference?

.

Why are you claiming that such a thing is according to me? In the first instance having self awareness does not necessarily mean that one also has preferences, nor that one can intervene in the process of being oneself in order to change oneself. I have claimed self-awareness is necessary to free will, but I have not made any claim that it is necessarily sufficient for free will.

I have not even attempted to. You have failed to demonstrate that not being independent of genetic or environmental influences means not being free. You have posted definitions of free will that do not require such. I have already asked why you assume such causation necessarily precludes free will or what you believe free will is other than omnipotence that would entail an absence of such causation, but you have not provided any explanation in respect of that.

Once again, if by "I have no free will" what you actually mean is "I am not omnipotent", this is not much of a revelation.


Through the influence of their self-awareness in conjunction with their own preferences. Nothing you have posted gives any compelling reason to believe that genes and the environment cannot result in an entity that is capable of being a self-influencing environmental factor. You have not produced a single reason why something making choices in accordance with its own nature, incuding a choice to change its own nature, would not be exercising free will, however that thing and its ability to make such choices came into being. You simply gloss over this aspect.

How do you conclude that I have no such control? In my view you are leaping from the cause to conclusions about the effect that are not provably predicted by the cause nor necessarily observed in respect of the effect. You assume that because X is caused by Y and Z that X is therefore always dictated and entirely determined by Y and Z, even though you have not produced any challenge to the hypothesis that once X exists, it is as much a cause of X as Y and Z, and potentially a more determining or influencing factor than either Y or Z, or Y and Z combined.


Er, surely this is a necessary implication of my view that free will is a skill? I cannot think of any skill off the top of my head that does not vary from person to person and even intra-personally over time and contexts.

A privilege? Well it's potentially advantageous. I am not convinved that people are born with it though; it might only arise after environmental engagement and very probably has neurological requisites that may not be met in a new-born human.

Again, I do not see why this is a problem. If X is caused by Y and Z, but once extant is a co-influence with Y and Z and has the potential to be the determining factor, then why if X is free will, is it not in fact free will after all?

I do not claim to know how to measure such, although I expect someone clever enough could if they worked hard enough and had access to the relevant data, come up with some means of doing so. I am unsure quite why this is entirely relevant to whether or not free will exists. Gravity surely existed before we had means of measuring it with any objectivity, reliability or utility?


I do not see why not. On the contrary, if free will depends on requisites that can be practiced or provided if identified, then I would suggest that anyone interested in increasing the amount of free will that exists either generally in the population, or within any particular person, would be interested and could make use of the concept of free will as a skill.

Being aware of oneself does not necessarily entail the ability to evaluate oneself, does not necessary entail any preferences (about oneself or other things), nor does it necessarily entail any capacity to intervene in the process of being oneself to intentionally make and abide by choices about oneself that result in changing oneself in accordance with one's own nature as a self.

According to you this is evidence of, or is in fact, the exercise of free will: ( ? )

1 ) The quality/nature and extent of self-awareness is entirely determined by genes and environment; ie. it is not independent of these things.

2 ) Self-awareness has the same effect as that of an observer on quantum potentialities, such that they are collapsed into a single actuality in a different way than if there had been a more limited, or no, awareness/observer present; self-awareness is thus involved in "creating change".

3 ) This new actuality becomes part of the determined/determining universe

4 ) This slightly altered environment then plays a part in determining the ongoing quality/nature and extent of our self-awareness, ( aswell as our preferences etc etc etc ).

Your argument is circular.

Choosing to extend, practice, "improve", or exercise your self-awareness is a choice but one that is determined by your genes and environment, ( otherwise it would be supernatural or "omnipotence" ), and although exercising it may change your environment and consequently change the quality/nature and extent of your self-awareness a few microinstants later, it is at any given instant determined by genes and environment.

You say that I:
Do you mean that it doesn't matter that our self-awareness is at any given moment entirely determined by genes and environment; we are still free?

Your "free will" seems to be nothing more or less than an attitude/belief; "I am free so long as I am self-aware, ( which, I would like to point out, is only one of the many behaviours/actions which have an impact on our environment; self-awareness is not especially or uniquely powerful in that respect ), and have preferences". But there is nothing "there" other than the belief.

I realise that beliefs, held for even an instant, become, if only for an instant, part of the determining environment, but it is not necessary to believe that the object of the belief is an objectively "real" thing. I can see that you believe very very seriously in free will, but i submit that there is no argument for its objective existence, anymore than there is for god ( and I believe in god ).

The trouble is that you are pointing things out to me as evidence for, or as examples of, free will, and yet I see nothing deserving of the name, ( nothing more than "self-awareness, preferences", etc etc etc ). I am reminded of the people who point to the flowers, or the construction of the eye, or other marvels of the natural world and say that they are evidence for the existence of god.
.

Last edited by ouinon on 15 Dec 2009, 1:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Nothing that you have suggested sounds like proof of free will, pandd, so what I am wondering is why you believe in free will; what it is about the belief that you find useful/helpful? What purpose does it serve? Because in my experience, and in my opinion, it is a harmful rather than a helpful belief ( as I realise some people think that belief in god is harmful or at the very least misguided ) .

.

No, and I have to wonder how carefully you are reading my comments, as I have already stated unambiguously that the notion of micro-tubules and the possibility of quantum involvement is not my premise but rather something I included because it was contextually relevant, and while offering a plausible explanation, was more to the point, something I thought you would find quite interesting to read/learn/think about.

That might be the case. However, if one accepts the premise of micro-tubules (and I cannot see any reason to reject it, although I also do not accept it, but rather have no opinion either way) then it would not be quite so plausible. Arguably if one accepts the hypothesis about micro-tubules then one would probably need to consider the possibility that the environment (including genes) is controlled by the aspect of ourselves that is not brain-localized.

Actually, I believe that when people began to refer to free will, they were either completely imagining things, or were accurately reporting something real, or were inaccurately reporting something real. I myself have experienced something I perceive as real that comes sufficiently close to the descriptions of the thing these people were reporting on, and I find it utterly implausible that this is not what they were referring to. However, I find that the reports these people made were not necessarily entirely accurate. Therefore, it is my view that what is called free will does indeed exist and that any question in respect to it is not about whether or not it exists, but rather about the nature and quality of whatever it is. My view is that its nature is that of a skill and its qualities therefore vary from one person to another and intra-personally across time.

It follows from this, that to me it actually does not matter whether or not free will is simply another determined thing in a determined universe so far as its existence goes. Such a fact. if true, does not make what was referred to go away or cease to exist, but rather is information about the nature or qualities of the existing thing referred to.


I do not think it is, or I would have been much less likely to type it.


None of which matters from the moment free will is itself an environmental constituent determining itself. Again, you are caught up in the cause and assumptions about the effect that are neither predicted by the nature and qualities of the causes, nor necessarily observed at the point of effect.

To my personal opinion, it does not matter in the least as I see free will as simply being a mundane skill that varies from person to person and intra-personally. However if you personally cannot accept that even if people were wrong about what they referred to, that they did mean this skill that I am referring to, and you in fact require that there be some element of relative freedom (anything else simply devolving into nothing more insightful than "I am not omnipotent"), then to you it will be of more significance. None the less, this does not exclude free will, as if self-awareness is an influencing environmental factor, then one is not determined by genes and environment independent of ones own self-awareness.

I think the barrier to you understanding the significance of this is that you are fixated on causes. Consider for a moment the absence of self-awareness. The environmental influences that apply, do not include any mindfulness on the part of the organism. This is quite different from a creature that is not only self-aware, but also can act on that awareness to alter itself. Now consider what you might call this difference. Perhaps you have a better name in mind than free will. But for what reason do you think this difference, whatever you personally might call it, is not what is meant by "free will"? Is your objection merely a pedantic semantic one? "Free will" is a poor name and this is equivalent to non-existence?


It is more than an attitude or belief. It is a skill.

I am not confident that it has an existence that is characterized by objectivity, but rather speculate that it exists as something entirely subjective. None the less I expect it has objectively measurable qualities and would be unsurprised if in the furture there is technology that can objectively measure at least some of its qualities or effects.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Do you really think that there exists these things that have a superficial appearance entirely in keeping with the descriptions of free will, but because of the use of the word "free" that this cannot be what was referred to? That rather, coincidently, some other entirely unrelated thing that does not actually exist was meant; in your view is this really more likely than that free will refers to what I am describing, and just happens to be a less than stellar name that arose due to inaccurate beliefs held by people with sufficient influence to generate convention in respect of the name? To me this requires a momumental coincidence that is highly unlikely. It seems quite likely to me that what I am describing (a mundane skill) is what these reporters were observing and reporting about and chose to call free will (however inadvised the name may be).

I am reminded of someone who takes things overly literally and fixates on black and white thinking that is entirely limited by a failure to grasp that insignifciance of the semantic block they have created for themselves in respect of the subject matter to which they are applying it......which is to say that I am reminded somewhat of myself...

Nothing you have described in respect of your expectations of free will sound like anything other than magical omnipotence, and again even this you cannot be certain is beyond the realm of possibility.

As to what I find useful about my understanding of free will, it facilitates free will for a start. It also assists me in my task of helping to develop this skill in my step-son, keeping me mindful that he needs to be exposed to a wide range of material and experiences that will help him to be more self-aware and self-understanding, and also more aware and understanding of other environmental factors. It keeps me aware that unless he is properly equipped with particular knowledge and having had opportunity to practice certain core requisite skills, that he will be significantly less effective at utilizing free will and will be less "free" to will himself and less effective as an agent. It reminds me that I am an environmental constitutent that has the potential to influence the development or atrophy of free will both in myself and in others, and it causes me to act in ways that promotes this skill in myself and in others.

I don't see how it is important if I have free will or not so long as I always do what I want to do.


I know that all the things I do are the things I wanted to to because the desire/want always comes before the action.
What does it matter if the choice to do what I want to do is a 'free will' choice or just the mechanical workings of my brain. It's still what I wanted to do.


Either:
A) I have free will.
In this case I make choices via some non-random mystical process that always chooses to do what I want to do.

Or B) I have no free will
In this case I make choices via a non-random physical process that always chooses to do what I want to do.

The difference is academic to me.

I don't care how I make the choice as long as it is the choice I want to make. I always is.
Furthermore I don't care if I don't choose the choices I want to make so long as they are fulfilled. They always are.

The freedom to make choices I don't want to make isn't freedom at all.

In the same way as you wouldn't care if the world was round or flat so long as you could get to work/study/the shops each day etc? The only time when you might start worrying/wondering about it is if you had to decide which direction to go in to get to Australia if you lived in Europe, perhaps?

.

You said:
The reason that I have retained that sequence of events as your main argument for the existence of free will is because it is as close as you get to providing some kind of objective proof. The rest of your explanations/descriptions seem to consist of nothing but your personal interpretations, ( like the "construction of the eye" argument for the objective existence of god ). You point to X, Y, and Z as evidence of free will, and yet, however hard I try, and I have been trying, I can not see the free will that you say is in these events/experiences.

More to come, but having lost one and a half hours of careful reply yesterday ( ) because WP froze on a page and I had to reboot completely, I am wary of trying to answer everything in one post.
.

Last edited by ouinon on 17 Dec 2009, 5:31 am, edited 1 time in total.