Yes.
Yes.
Yes, that kind of free will is an illusion.
Now I can’t prove that there isn’t some little man at the controls, separate from my material brain, but all the data we have from neuroscience points in the direction that the brain’s function is all material.
By the way, would you answer these questions differently for a computer? You seemed to agree that a computer was a good analogy for a brain.
Yes, a science that can only judge by material criteria would come to that conclusion naturally.
It’s a good analogy up to a point. A computer has an user, of that we are certain. If there is no user for the hardware that is you, then it is a pisspoor analogy as we lack the defining characteristic of the computer. The thing that gives the computer its purpose.
If something exists, and that something interacts with the world we live in, we can figure out a way to observe it. If we can’t observe it, even in principle, then in what way can it be said to exist? Maybe something else does exist, but how would we know? Anyone making any statements about its nature is just making shit up, since there’s no way to check it.
I don’t see the user as being significant here. A computer user, in this analogy, is just another entity that it interacts with. It sounds like you’re avoiding the obvious by throwing up a bogus objection. Is the software running on a computer predetermined by the low-level semiconductor physics? And does it have free will?
If materialistic means are the only methods of observation then you are indeed correct.
It’s not a bogus objection, a computer exists solely to provide an extension of the user, without the user it has no purpose. So asking the question of free will, but putting the user out of the equation just creates a tautological analogy.
If you have ideas on how to observe something that has no effect on our material world, I’d love to hear it. I don’t think it’s possible, but I am open to your thoughts on it.
I just don’t see, if something has no effect on our material world, how it’s possible to make any claims of knowledge about it. IOW, someone is making shit up.
I never said anything about no effect on the material world.
If we have the ability to make choices our choices affect the material world. If we don’t have the ability to make choices then we are really just automatons who have no personal responsibility as our actions are merely a result of the matter we are made up of, and through some weird quirk of the way matter works we somehow find ourselves aware of things, but even that awareness is merely a function of concentration gradients. So that some people are happy with their lives while others are miserable is merely an interaction of brain chemistry, concentration gradients and open valences.
Hey, look, one of the those false dilemma things. It’s quite possible for you to be able to make choices, but those choices are influenced by what you are. It’s also quite possible for you overcome what you are and make a different choice that what would seem most likely. In order to claim that we are automatons free of responsibility, you would have to show that we have no choice whatsoever, and are completely at the whim of particle collisions. I’ll wait.
No, I didn’t make a false dilemma. I asked someone about their view of what they were saying.
So if you think that we are capable of making choices, from what source does the ability to make choices derive?
If you actually want to have a decent debate here you’re going to have try a bit harder rather than asking for a pithy explanation of free will, consciousness and determinism.
Go away for a few hours, and the thread tries to ditch you. Well, I think answers to these will answer the current posts equally well.
Yes. It’s pretty evidently real.
Yes. There’s no hint of any suggestion of even semi-credible evidence that there is any other medium or material interacting with our brain to create consciousness.
Do I believe in Free Will? Not by your definition - not even a little bit.
Here is your expanded commentary on free will:
In this, you are drawing a distinction between a choice and a choice made through deterministic methods. In higher-level terms, the latter would involve things like assessing preferences and reacting to knowledge and coming to a rational decision based on what you know and want and believe. These are all processes where a motivation or deciding factor contrains or influences a decision in a manner that is determined by the nature of the influence. That is, these are all deterministic factors.
So, you are drawing a distinction between a choice, and the process of making a choice, and setting the two in opposition to one another.
The sad fact is, unless you’re completely random and irrational and unthinking, completely lacking a rational process to make your choices, then by your definition choices aren’t choices. I don’t agree with this, so I do not accept your apparent definition of Free Will.
Because I admit that choices are made based on your mental state, there is no conflict with that mental state being expressable in a cognitive map, and the decision-making process being expressible as physical orderly data processing procedures withing that physical stratum. There is no contradiction.
Once a person admits the aren’t completely random and irrational and unthinking, the only question that remains regarding free will is whether the universe itself is deterministic or not. That is, whether there is some tiny random factor that would allow two (slightly) differing results to emerge from the same starting state. And I seriously don’t know or care either way. Awareness that brains make minds via a physical process doesn’t contradict with the notion that the brain rolls a quantum D20 every now and then as it calculates along.
The one thing I do know is that even if the universe is nondeterministic, that isn’t the font of human choice. That’s the font of minor random data errors and variations - clearly nothing of consequence, since most people normally don’t act completely random. Clearly, people act mostly in deterministic manner, their choices determined by their own mental processes and mental state.
(Just like a browser. ;))
How does this not analogize with a browser running on a computer? If you’re just saying that the mind is a program that is running in an entirely physical way on the physical meat-computer of the brain, then we are in total agreement. If you are not…then we are not.
Actually I could - I could upload your mind into mine. I could make your memories my own and reconfigure my cognition to match yours exactly. Then I could experience your memories and feelings using my mental ‘software’ and feel them exactly the same way you do. (It may or may not be possible to get my own mind back afterwards and still remember experiencing yours, but that’s a separate issue.)
Now, obviously I couldn’t do that just by reading the printout, but that’s not because your feelings are special flowers, it’s because you have to put the tape in the VCR to play it and you have to run the program to see it work. If you just look at the core dump, then sure, then you can’t know what it feels like to store the value 9 in a short integer. Sure, you can know it is encoded as 00000101. But you can’t know how that feels, not by just reading the core dump. You have to actually run the program.
Unless we replicated or simulated your brain structure and current cognitive state, you mean. Which kind of makes you equivalent, spiritually speaking, to that browser. The only difference being that we currently don’t have the technology to xerox you, which isn’t a particularly significant difference.
So what? We could say the same thing about you and “you yesterday”. You’ve had different experiences, ergo different information and stimuluses have caused your mental state to be different. Is there something meaningful about this fact?
I wholly agree that a person’s state is part of their identity - heck, it could probably be argued that’s it’s all of their identity. I think calling that a spirit is a blatant misuse of the word, of course - it’s emotionally loaded and implies things that aren’t the case. (Like that it’s not theoretically copyable, for instance.)
begbert2 I defined free will as the ability to make a choice. So you say you don’t believe in my definition of it and then go on to describe choice.
Which is it? Do we have the ability to make choices or don’t we?
You tell me - I stated my definition of “choice” clearly enough, I think. You didn’t.
If I say to myself “Hmm, I can choose strawberries or bean sprouts for a snack. I love strawberries, and I hate bean sprouts (that’s just the way I am). So, no contest - Strawberries, I choose you!”, is that a choice?
If a computer program says to itself, “Hmm, I can choose to respond to this mouse click, or not. I always obey mouse clicks (that’s just the way I am). So, no contest - mouse click, I respond!”, is that a choice?
Was it actually possible that you would have eaten the bean sprouts in the first place? Could you have chosen the bean sprouts over the strawberries?
No, it’s not.
I’m enjoying the free will portion of this debate, but shouldn’t it be shifted to another thread?
Mechanical doesn’t mean no free will by the way. There is always quantum uncertainty to give you the fudge factor you need. 
On topic: Spiritual means not wanting to think very hard. Wanting wishes and similar childish bullshit to be real.
I would say that religion is a subset of being “spiritual”. Spiritual people choose religion, or astrology, or crystals, or alternative medicine or whatever and latch onto that belief system, hanging their incredulity at the door.
Okay, I’ll bite.
Begbert Robot is looking at the bowl of sprouts and strawberries before him. There is a cool HUD looking thing that highlights each of the foods.
BR’s robot brain pulls a file about what he likes to eat.
Sprouts: 5 Happiness Points
Strawberries: 103 Happiness Points
BR then pulls in mostly random order a series of other Happiness Point ratings.
BR:>Eating Things that are good for me: 20 HP to Sprouts
BR:>I just had Strawberries last night: -25 HP to Strawberries
BR:>I like being weird and people will see me choose the sprouts and think I’m weird: 30 HP to Sprouts
BR:>The last time I ate Sprouts the waitress was so pretty: 5 HP to Sprouts
BR:>I haven’t had Sprouts in years, I probably should… : 10 HP to Sprouts
BR:>[Pulls memory of BR’s Mother-Robot]Eat your fucking Sprouts you little shit!: 50 HP to sprouts.
And the processing begins:
Sprouts: 120
Strawberries: 83
BR engages the drivers for his arm and snatches a handfull of sprouts.
The way memories are stored and pulled appears semi random. It would depend on what was happening in the environment, how recently you thought about it, what was on your mind earlier and how the more recent memories have formed around it.
Complex enough systems appear random. And that’s enough to explain human behavior.
I’m not saying that this is how it is, but there is no fucking reason to assume some bullshit soul making the decisions.
This is the second time you have posted this nonsense and it really does nothing to promote the discussion.
You are simply attempting to play a definition game, loaded with emotional baggage, possibly for the purpose of deliberately getting a rise out of your opponents, (i.e. trolling), or possibly to get the thread moved to the BBQ Pit.
So far, the “anti-spiritual” side has priovided better arguments, but yours are not among them. Knock it off.
[ /Moderating ]
Of course the anti-spiritual side has provided better arguments. We actually have some.
I’d quibble as to whether my arguments are particularly weak, but I will attempt to reign it in.
I thought Lobohan’s Begbert-Robot example was reasonably non-offensive., possibly excepting the wording of his last line.
Depends which question you ask. Lobohan correctly points out that there are a number of factors that factor into all decisions, of which flavor is only one. In theory the other factors could have driven me to the (yuk) sprouts. (He’s also right about the HUD.)
Here’s the question that is probably most relevent to what you’re asking. Some people say, “If I could go back and do it again, knowing what I knew now, I’d do things differently.” Well, that’s a given, but the more interesting question is “If I could go back and do it again, knowing exactly what I knew the first time, with everything the same”, would I do things the same?"
I say either yes, or pretty much, depending on whether the universe is deterministic or not. If the latter, you would not deliberately choose to act differently; it would be a result of some random difference in the environment (possibly the environment in your head) that would cause your decision to be different, not a real choice. (I do not consider randomity to be a source of free will.) Either way, you could not deliberately choose any differently than you did the first time, because all the factors that drove your change, including your mood, inclinations and complete mental state are all exactly the same.
You can’t say I didn’t warn you I don’t believe in that libertarian free will of yours. (Poorly thought out nonsense, that stuff is - it doesn’t allow for any process for cognition to occur! (Note that moving all the thought into some spirit doesn’t solve the need for a cognition process.))
The problem with discussing things with you is that you often say some sort of smug and dismissive comment that tells me you don’t understand a word I am saying because your paraphrase misses the mark so widely. I never eliminated the cognitive process from the result at any step of the way. Since you assume that again and again and do not listen to my gentle attempts to correct you, it’s really not possible to discuss anything with you, because your programming is so deterministic that it doesn’t integrate input in favor of stereotypical assumptions that it makes about the person who it is talking to.
So yes, your strawman is poorly thought out nonsense, unfortunately for both of us it doesn’t address the points I am making and so the rest of your walls of text become suspect because I don’t want to go into detail due to your consistency in misinterpreting what I am saying.
Go back and rewrite that entire post without the completely baseless and smug aside and I will decide whether or not it is worth responding to.
Also Tomndebb’s threadshitting has kind of soured the thread for me. I think I am going to bow out.
I have a better idea. You tell me your cognitive model that allows for libertarian free will without succumbing to the fact that cognitive processes that aren’t entirely random are inevitably driven by deterministic factors. Because I have never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever heard of a theory that posits libertarian free will and bothers to explain how it could possibly work. Beyond nonsense like trying to wave it away with “uh, it’s a spirit. It just works,” or the equivalent.
See, if you told me your brilliant theory, then I wouldn’t have to keep trying to guess what it is. Then there wouldn’t be any risk of strawmen happening as I try to hit this elusive target of yours.
Because frankly, when you keep vaguely intimating that you have this brilliant plan that explains everying and accounts for everything and also washes windows and makes cappuchinos, all while evading the pitfalls that every similar theory always falls into, and you keep failing to actually present this brilliant theory, my suspension of disbelief starts to get a little stretched. And you start leading me to believe that not only am I not misinterpreting you, that there’s nothing there to misinterpret.
But surely that’s no possible becauase you’d never ever ever ever argue an incoherent position. So I’ll wait and see if you will deign to present one. Despite my failing to properly grovel and apologize and rewrite my post and contritely beg for your manganimous forgiveness o magnanimous magnanimous one.