Sunday School

[_Robert_Participant]

We don’t know. We do know that quantum mechanical systems are not deterministic but are instead probabilistic. That may give us the idea that we have free will when actually your decisions and choices have probabilities. For example, if you are a complete dumbass, you are more likely to vote for Trump, but for some reason you managed to vote for Harris.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

_Robert_ wrote:

We do know that quantum mechanical systems are not deterministic but are instead probabilistic. That may give us the idea that we have free will when actually your decisions and choices have probabilities.

I don’t buy that.  It’s too direct contact between different levels of reality: psychological and quantum reality.  I think it’s more likely that the psychology is some kind of illusion.

[_Robert_Participant]

Simon Paynton wrote:

_Robert_ wrote:

We do know that quantum mechanical systems are not deterministic but are instead probabilistic. That may give us the idea that we have free will when actually your decisions and choices have probabilities.

I don’t buy that. It’s too direct contact between different levels of reality: psychological and quantum reality. I think it’s more likely that the psychology is some kind of illusion.

Provide me with a list of human characteristics or decisions that do not present themselves as a normal probability distribution curve. We can start with intelligence or hair color and work our way into musical preferences. Throw any of that data on a chart and you will have a bell curve.

[UnseenParticipant]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Do all our choices, all the results of our executive decisions, have external causes?  Or are some of the causes free conscious deliberations – free thoughts?

Is not one choice wiser than another, with respect to long-term flourishing and survival?

In short, we have a combination of freewill and restriction, in reality.  @unseen, you’re asking that all causes of our decision-making are external.  I’m saying that some of them are internal: i.e., free thoughts.  How free are your thoughts?

Define “internal” vs. “external” for this situation. And is this a real, verifiable distinction or does it exist purely verbally? Can a thought be free if it’s made by a system which operates within the guardrails of physical reality?

What we call consciousness seems to be an epiphenomenon of a system based on human flesh. Brain, neurons, nervous system, etc.

A rainbow is a good example of an epiphenomenon. It appears to be off in the distance but it isn’t where it seems to be. You can hop in your very real car and drive toward it, but you will never reach it because it isn’t a phenomenon, it’s an epiphenomenon. “A rainbow is a stunning natural phenomenon caused by refraction and dispersion of light, enhanced by internal reflection within raindrops.” (ChatGPT)

I submit that consciousness is, similarly, an epiphenomenon of the nervous system simply operating according to the same laws that govern every other thing and being in existence.

Anything that operates outside those laws is either miraculous or nonexistent.

Prof. Searle is always interesting when discussing this subject:

• This reply was modified 2 months, 2 weeks ago by  Unseen.

[StregaModerator]

@unseen Nice!  Thanks!  Great analogy. I support your position.

Your consciousness is like your digestive system. Where does that go when you die?

[UnseenParticipant]

Strega wrote:

@unseen Nice! Thanks! Great analogy. I support your position. Your consciousness is like your digestive system. Where does that go when you die?

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Unseen wrote:

What we call consciousness seems to be an epiphenomenon of a system based on human flesh. Brain, neurons, nervous system, etc.

Maybe, but it’s not random or superfluous.  It’s structured in a definite way for a reason: to help us thrive, survive and reproduce, like every other part of us.

The purpose of the central nervous system is to make decisions so that we can thrive by interacting successfully with our environment.

Konrad Körding – “Decision Theory: What ‘Should’ the Nervous System Do?”

It’s basically a functioning organ rather than a strange epiphenomenon. However, that’s not to say that the relationship between thoughts and consciousness and free choice on one hand, and the physical and biological substrate on the other, is straightforward.  It’s not a simple mapping from one to the other.

Rather than an epiphenomenon, I would call it an emergent property from complexity.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

_Robert_ wrote:

We can start with intelligence or hair color and work our way into musical preferences. Throw any of that data on a chart and you will have a bell curve.

What does that have to do with free choice and consciousness?

[UnseenParticipant]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Unseen wrote:

What we call consciousness seems to be an epiphenomenon of a system based on human flesh. Brain, neurons, nervous system, etc.

Maybe, but it’s not random or superfluous. It’s structured in a definite way for a reason: to help us thrive, survive and reproduce, like every other part of us.

You’re no more free if your actions have no cause then you are if they do. This is because the concept makes no sense to start with. We can be and feel free on a surface level in the sense that we can do things we want to do or out of habit or whatever and not do them at gunpoint, but as soon as one looks behind the curtain, the problems begin.

In order to salvage free will, one needs a doer that is somehow separate from the physical  body. A spirit or soul in other words, and along with that comes all the problems of the famous “ghost in the machine.”

And as for your “emergent property” argument, how does that salvage free will. Whatever we do, there’s something antecedent driving it. A sufficient condition or set thereof.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Unseen wrote:

We can be and feel free on a surface level in the sense that we can do things we want to do or out of habit or whatever and not do them at gunpoint,

That is free will right there.  On a day-to-day level, I exercise freedom of choice, restricted or guided by certain constraints, pushed in certain directions by unseen forces – but still flexibly, consciously, deliberately chosen.

Your argument is one from “it can’t be worked out, therefore it doesn’t exist”.  I suspect the actual situation is different from that which we both imagine, a larger picture we’re missing.

[UnseenParticipant]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Unseen wrote:

We can be and feel free on a surface level in the sense that we can do things we want to do or out of habit or whatever and not do them at gunpoint,

That is free will right there. On a day-to-day level, I exercise freedom of choice, restricted or guided by certain constraints, pushed in certain directions by unseen forces – but still flexibly, consciously, deliberately chosen.

Your argument is one from “it can’t be worked out, therefore it doesn’t exist”. I suspect the actual situation is different from that which we both imagine, a larger picture we’re missing.

This is not the free will we are looking for. (Paraphrase of a Star Wars line.) You don’t get agency from simply not being forced or constrained. Not being forced or constrained to do what you do doesn’t make you morally responsible for it.

Nothing happens without sufficient conditions being met, unless one posits a spirit or soul that exists in a nonphysical realm that operates according to a different set of rules which spirits or souls must obey. Different realm, same problem.

And then you need a third set of rules governing how the physical and spiritual realms interact.

The only solution: miracles.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Unseen wrote:

Nothing happens without sufficient conditions being met,

We think for a reason: to calculate what we have to do to achieve our goals, to thrive, survive and reproduce.  There is therefore biological pressure to think.  As for what direction this thinking takes, then within constraints and limits, and acted upon by influences – it’s a free choice.

[UnseenParticipant]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Unseen wrote:

Nothing happens without sufficient conditions being met,

We think for a reason: to calculate what we have to do to achieve our goals, to thrive, survive and reproduce. There is therefore biological pressure to think. As for what direction this thinking takes, then within constraints and limits, and acted upon by influences – it’s a free choice.

Yes, much of the behavior we want people to be morally responsible for is done for some set of reasons, which in moral terms we call “motives.” But we cannot freely choose which motives we respond to because there are sufficient conditions being met to give us those motives and correlative events going on in our brain and nervous system over which we do not preside which result in the actions we take. Where does responsibility and morality enter in? Beyond, of course, “You did it. You were not under duress. Therefore, you’re responsible for it.”

[_Robert_Participant]

Simon Paynton wrote:

_Robert_ wrote:

We can start with intelligence or hair color and work our way into musical preferences. Throw any of that data on a chart and you will have a bell curve.

What does that have to do with free choice and consciousness?

Everything. Everything about us including “free choice” is governed by a probability function.

[PopeBeanieModerator]

Unseen wrote:

Where does responsibility and morality enter in? Beyond, of course, “You did it. You were not under duress. Therefore, you’re responsible for it.

Can one just think of morality as an emergent thought process, with societal ramifications? In particular, people stating moral beliefs can and do influence others, and one’s self.

I’m not arguing for free will. I’m just more focused on the “agency of personal belief” wrt how behaviors are influenced at large. Since guilt and punishment are often determined by society, or at least by people at the top of a hierarchy, the better we understand the possibly most-effective solutions to addressing society’s moral behaviors, the more we can improve our lot.

Whether free will exists, or not.

I.e., I can see the benefit of making the philosophical discussion more tangible in real life, to inform human behaviorism, by making the conversations more accessible to wider audiences. Personally, I’ve already decided that whether free will actually exists is moot, as long as any ramifications of determinism can inform us on how we as a society can make better choices that affect each other, and our children’s future.

(And yes, determinism itself can be a hard pill for genpop humans to swallow, but at least its discussion is not burdened with centuries of philosophical contests, while determinism is pretty much pure science. It might not be taught as determinism, but hypothesizing, testing, and repeatable tests connecting cause and effect will be a forever endeavor. (Jake may notice how I worded that! Oooh, just had an idea for ChatGPT…)

• This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by  PopeBeanie.
• This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by  PopeBeanie. Reason: had to add the genpop phrase

[Author]

Posts