At Mind Matters News: John Horgan at Scientific American: Does quantum mechanics kill free will?

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 16, 2022

Intelligent Design, Mind, Physics}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Physicists take sides: Sabine Hossenfelder thinks superdeterminism enables quantum mechanics to kill free will; George Ellis disagrees:

One of the most interesting science writers of our era is John Horgan, who has managed to infuriate so many of the right people (to infuriate) while giving the rest of us something to ponder. In a recent column in Scientific American he takes on the question of whether quantum mechanics (quantum physics) rules out free will.
…

Einstein’s suggestion that the moon “would feel thoroughly convinced that it was traveling its way of its own accord” doesn’t really resolve anything because the moon isn’t thinking anything at all. For that matter, few ponder whether particles, viruses, or termites have free will. The problem is making arguments against free will coincide with human experience. Nor can we simply say, “People just want to believe they have free will”. Sometimes we want to believe that. But other times (when we are looking for excuses).

We don’t want to believe that.

Horgan sides, somewhat tentatively, with free will. He notes that humans are more than just heaps of particles. Higher levels of complexity enable genuinely new qualities. What humans can do is not merely a more complex version of what amoebas can do — in turn, a more complex version of what electrons can do. Greater complexity can involve genuinely new qualities. A philosopher would say that he is not a reductionist.
But that also means that mental phenomena are a reality. Materialists won’t stay comfortable with that for long. We haven’t heard the last of this debate.
News, “At Scientific American: Does quantum mechanics kill free will” at Mind Matters News (March 16, 2022)

Takehome: Horgan’s arguments against superdeterminism work quite well but they require a world in which the human mind really exists. Is he prepared to go there?

Mind Matters News offers a number of articles on free will by neurosurgeon Dr. Michael Egnor including

Can physics prove there is no free will? No, but it can make physicists incoherent when they write about free will. It’s hilarious. Sabine Hossenfelder misses the irony that she insists that people “change their minds” by accepting her assertion that they… can’t change their minds.

Does “alien hand syndrome” show that we don’t really have free will? One woman’s left hand seemed to have a mind of its own. Did it? Alien hand syndrome doesn’t mean that free will is not real. In fact, it clarifies exactly what free will is and what it isn’t.

But is determinism true? Does science show that we fated to want whatever we want? Modern science—both theoretical and experimental—strongly supports the reality of free will.

Comments

WJM
Without free will, reasons are not reasons. They are causes, which as KF points out, destroys all rational thought and renders us deterministic automatons.
The fact that reasons exist means there is free-will. Reasons come from purpose and meaning - and those are sources from mind or intelligence. There's no infinite regress because both reasons and free will are contingent and derivative and have to have a first cause.Silver Asiatic_{March 21, 2022
March
03
Mar
21
21
2022
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT}

WJM, there is no infinite regress of reasons, influences or inclinations in our decision and action, yes there are these factors but there just is no way to pack infinite regress into ourselves as finite, fallible, often struggling [including morally but not just], too often ill willed creatures. A growing lifetime and even family, community and civilisation of influences yes, an achieved traversed actual infinity no. KFkairosfocus_{March 21, 2022
March
03
Mar
21
21
2022
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT}

It seems to me that what is standing in the way of having "true" free will is the infinite regress of reasons. Ultimately, there is a reason why we make any choice, even if we are "meta" choosing the reasons for and against making any particular decision. Even if we are choosing how we feel about what it is we are making a decision about. The central issue here is the question, is it correct to say that reasons act on will in a determinative fashion? Or, is there some ineffable "free will" commodity that is involved? Is it a true chicken-and-egg scenario? If it is a true "chicken and egg" scenario, then not only is every "choice" preceded by a reason, every reason is also preceded by a choice. Neither and both can be seen as "the original" because they are inseparable except by perspective. Free will is inseparable from reasons, and reason are inseparable from free will. You can't have one without the other. Reasons do not matter unless there is free will; free will does not matter without reasons. They are two sides of the same coin; one cannot exist without the other. Without free will, reasons are not reasons. They are causes, which as KF points out, destroys all rational thought and renders us deterministic automatons.William J Murray_{March 21, 2022
March
03
Mar
21
21
2022
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT}

DD, definitions can be arbitrary when dealing with conventions, e.g. sucessively redefining the metre from a fraction of earth's circumference to now how far light travels in about 3 ns, because of the accuracy of measuring time. As I had to memorise as a 4th former, the definition of a quantity or unit is a precise statement describing that quantity or unit. But when a definition is more like a dictionary description of a real world entity or state of affairs, it has a requirement of accuracy, truth. Saying, of what is that it is; and of what is not that it is not. What is happening in our civilisation currently is that powerful or influential radicals seek to blur distinctions by subverting language from this requirement of accuracy. In short, sophisticated cultural imposition of newspeak lies, designed to corrupt our ability to think straight. This, you are echoing and enabling, and it needs to be highlighted as systematic lying, speaking WITH DISREGARD TO TRUTH, in hope of profiting from what is said being taken as true. And that is a classic example of apt definition. So, no, you do not get to enable corruption of the very good term human nature, nor do you get to suggest that as character formed by prior choices, formed attitudes, habits, emotions, perceptions, thoughts and experience etc influence decisions, then we are not rationally, responsibly, significantly free. Such is also trying to subvert what rejecting determinism and insisting that we are and must be significantly free are about, through injection of compatibilism, relativism etc. The bottomline is simple: if we are not significantly free as a race, rationality and responsibility, ability to warrant claims and conclusions so have genuine insight and knowledge all collapse. It is not emotive reaction to consequences to point out that you cannot but appeal to our responsible rational freedom in order to undermine our justified confidence in it. Sorry, reductio, fail. We have every good reason to stand on the first facts of our intellectual and volitional experience and to hold that notions and arguments to the contrary are false and potentially or actually corrosive of reasoned thought, discussion, decision and consensus building towards community upliftment. They, therefore, reflect misanthropy. I suggest, you are well advised to reconsider. KFkairosfocus_{March 21, 2022
March
03
Mar
21
21
2022
02:40 AM
2
02
40
AM
PDT}

KF,
DD, first, false, I have responded, but it is clear that there is a root problem indicated by how you treated the word nature defining our constitution as human beings, starting with favourable summary of an argument.
This really is so odd. I went to great lengths to explain to you something that should be obvious to anyone: definitions are not truth claims. I provided a particular definition for a concept I was using in my argument, and I assigned that concept to a word, and the word I chose was "nature". I could have called it "characteristics" or "mental states" or "the way one is" or "attributes" - or I could have it called "garlic" or "motorboat" or "badabing" - and it would not have changed my argument one iota! It's just a definition, KF! We are free to take any word we choose - even made-up ones - and announce how that word is being used in one's argument, and that can't possibly be right or wrong! In any case, I provided you with exactly what I meant, and yet you still couldn't engage my argument. I think the reason is obvious: You have actually realized that you have no rebuttal to the argument I've laid out here. What is that argument? Simply that our choices are determined by our beliefs and desires, so we cannot choose our beliefs and desires. It is a bootstrapping, or chicken-and-egg problem. But instead of arguing against that, you go off on a weird tangent about how I'm using the word "nature" in a way you don't like. Oh, well.dogdoc_{March 20, 2022
March
03
Mar
20
20
2022
10:02 PM
10
10
02
PM
PDT}

Vividbleau Before any beliefs can be chosen I would think that self awareness would be the starting point. There must first be an encounter with the fact that what I am aware of is the existence of something distinct from me, a brute fact. This encounter logically precedes belief and is also the foundation and and starting point for making sense of the world and the subsequent beliefs we adopt.
I think first come the dependence of somebody else(mom's breast and later God /or for atheists different subsitutes of God ) then unconditional love that is represented by our parents (then by God/or surrogates of God: governments, "science",etc. ) . Of course we couldn't understand these concepts if we hadn't had the primordial concept of TRUTH. Truth that I'm me ,truth that I'm totally dependent by somebody else that is not me ,the truth that I need/receive(or not)/ love. Truth, dependence and love are the foundation on any thought. Perversion(with our free will) of any of these will result in ending in the pathological area(see leftist, atheist ideologies) that sooner or later will became norm and normality will be considered pathology.Lieutenant Commander Data_{March 20, 2022
March
03
Mar
20
20
2022
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

Seversky said:
First if both our internal voice and those we presume are coming from an external reality are both experienced in our consciousness, how do we distinguish between them?
Do you have difficulty distinguishing between what you're thinking, and what other people around you are saying, in a dream? In your worldview, are the people in the dream, and the other stuff in the dream real, solid things occurring somewhere other than entirely in your consciousness?
Second, if there is no external reality, just conscious experience, why do we create the illusion of other then self?
You don't know enough about what "self" and "other" represent under idealism/MRT to ask proper questions that utilize those terms, much less apply the term "illusion" in a meaningful way in that paradigm. But, we've been over this before, if I remember correctly, some time back in other threads. Not really much use in rehashing it here. I more enjoy participating in other venues about MRT and idealism than here.William J Murray_{March 20, 2022
March
03
Mar
20
20
2022
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT}

There are also the intriguing cases of people who hear voices that they are convinced are other people even though there is no one else present, as far as we can tell. This raises two questions. First if both our internal voice and those we presume are coming from an external reality are both experienced in our consciousness, how do we distinguish between them? Second, if there is no external reality, just conscious experience, why do we create the illusion of other then self? Me and the others would like to know.Seversky_{March 20, 2022
March
03
Mar
20
20
2022
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT}

Before any beliefs can be chosen I would think that self awareness would be the starting point. There must first be an encounter with the fact that what I am aware of is the existence of something distinct from me, a brute fact.
A fairly common spiritual perspective is that everything we consider to be "other" is actually aspects of ourselves "projected outwards." There are even non-spiritual perspectives under idealism, such as that provided by Bernardo Kastrup, that the experiences we have as "other" or "not-self" are actually internal aspects ourselves that we do not identify with as being "us," or aspects of the self-identifying "ego" within a purely internal, mental reality. So, "self and other" is not necessarily a "brute fact." Rather, it is an ontological perspective. IOW, a belief.William J Murray_{March 20, 2022
March
03
Mar
20
20
2022
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT}

Dog Welcome back, I hope you had a great day. “5) But you cannot have freely chosen your beliefs, desires, and so on. This is because in order to choose, say, belief A, you would already have to have some other belief B that was the reason for your choice. And before you chose to hold belief B, you would need to have chosen some other belief C, and so on, and so on. At no point could you freely choose, unless you chose for no reason at all.” I would be interested in your critique of the following. I am not so sure that 5 represents the true state of affairs. Before any beliefs can be chosen I would think that self awareness would be the starting point. There must first be an encounter with the fact that what I am aware of is the existence of something distinct from me, a brute fact. This encounter logically precedes belief and is also the foundation and starting point for making sense of the world and the subsequent beliefs we adopt. Vividvividbleau_{March 20, 2022
March
03
Mar
20
20
2022
12:46 AM
12
12
46
AM
PDT}

DD, first, false, I have responded, but it is clear that there is a root problem indicated by how you treated the word nature defining our constitution as human beings, starting with favourable summary of an argument. As a start point, consider what is in common and evidently innate for reasonably normal human beings, relevant to our considerations such that we can see that to lack such is to be deficient. We are rational, self/other aware, language using, conscience guided, preferring and have a sense of freedom in that choice, i.e. had we wished or felt it prudent or right could have chosen another option. We find that we have a certain dignity or worth that we have rights, freedoms and correlative duties, some by dint of being born human, some by virtue of our given word, and more. These are antecedent to and enable patterns of choices, learning etc, though we are also aware that we can change our minds and ways, perhaps with some difficulty. Further to which, we understand first principles of reasoning, conduct etc that guide us, though for some of these, we may to some extent flout the principle. We know habits of thought, attitude and behaviour can be changed, but often only with difficulty and pain. And more. So, the attempt to redefine our nature fails. KF PS, it is almost amusing then sad to see you trying to argue us to choose to reject the self understanding that we are responsible, rational, self-moved, significantly free creatures. If we are not, we cannot know, reason or be persuaded by evidence or argument, we can only be manipulated or programmed. That one has reasons or preferences or principles or a sense of prudence guiding one's choice is not an expression of being not free in choice, such help us to choose with wisdom, as opposed to without freedom. To argue that we are not free is to undermine the credibility of one's argument through fatal self reference. Regrettably, simply pointing such out may often be inadequate to persuade those who have become convinced of lack of freedom, but it is enough to show a core error of self referential incoherence. PPS, I note:
human nature n 1. the qualities common to humanity 2. ordinary human behaviour, esp considered as less than perfect 3. (Sociology) sociol the unique elements that form a basic part of human life and distinguish it from other animal life Collins English Dictionary
Compare, the classic summary, rational animality, i.e. self-moved but guided by reason. Where, misleading, manipulative, fallacious, false or even deceitful definitions arbitrarily inserted into discourse are classic techniques to manipulate the naive or unwary. When we address human nature we seek to accurately and reasonably objectively identify human characteristics antecedent to our description. We use language as a going concern institution, but one with established usage, we cannot simply arbitrarily rearrange to suit our agenda without being fallacious or worse. Yes, one may inject new ideas but the pretence that usurpation is the standard is wrong. We can note that this has now proceded to a point where evident gaslighting on characteristics coded into our cells, is now being pushed as though to question it is what is wrong. That is usurpation and moral inversion.kairosfocus_{March 20, 2022
March
03
Mar
20
20
2022
12:37 AM
12
12
37
AM
PDT}

KF, All of the posts here you made up until this one were completely unresponsive to my argument, as though you were posting in the wrong thread. But yes, here finally you have responded to what I've written. Thank you! My response:
DD: Deliberative, free choices depend on the agent’s nature, or the way the agent is at the time of the choice. KF: Our responsible, rational, self-moved, significantly free nature or constitution enables us to make rational choices,
We we may be using "nature" in two different senses here. What I mean by "nature" in this context (as I've written many times here) is any attribute of a person that might affect one's deliberation over choices, including one's beliefs, desires, intentions, commitments, hopes, fears, and so on.
DD: An agent’s nature consists of their beliefs, desires, intentions, commitments, values, priorities, hopes, fears... KF: Off target.
Definitions can't be right or wrong or on target or off target. Definitions simply express the meaning intended to be conveyed by a word in some context. I used the word "nature" here in a particular way, and made sure I provided a clear definition of the way I was using it. If you are interested in discussing my argument, you'll need to interpret that word just the way I defined it here. Otherwise we'll just be talking past each other.
Our nature has to do with our being capable of rational, responsible choice, however we find ourselves to be ultimately constituted. Our present worldviews, emotions etc may influence our inclinations but they are not our nature, we could speak of habits, beliefs, commitments, agendas but again such are influencers not the core of our nature.
This is a different meaning of the word "nature". My argument does not use this meaning.
DD: in other words any mental aspect of the agent that can contribute to their decisions.>> KF: This is partly correct but in context due to the highlighted just above sets up a strawman.
Again, I was defining the term, trying to make very clear the way I was using the term "nature" in this context. Definitions are neither correct nor incorrect, because they are not propositions. Definitions simply enable people to communicate; they are not truth claims. The next few items you wrote were not responsive to my argument, because you were using a different definition of the word "nature" than I was. Again: In this context, I use the word "nature" to mean any personal attribute that can be said to contribute to a deliberative choice, such as ones beliefs and desires.
But one can choose that one no longer wishes a Full English for breakfast.
1) If you chose to forgo a Full English for breakfast, then you would either be doing that for some set of reasons, or you would be doing it for no reason at all. 2) If you made your choice for no reason at all, and if you want to call that sort of choice a "free choice", then I won't argue that. It is not, though, what I would say is a sort of free choice worth wanting. 3) But what if you make your choice by deliberating over some set of reasons? For example, say you believed that the Full English was not healthy, and you desired to eat only healthy foods, so you chose to eat something else. And if you believed the Full English was healthy, or if you desired to eat unhealthy food, you would have made a different choice. Your choice thus relies on your beliefs and desires (and priorities, values, and so on) 4) Since your choices rely on your beliefs and desires etc., then you must have freely chosen your beliefs, desires, etc. in order for your choice to be free. 5) But you cannot have freely chosen your beliefs, desires, and so on. This is because in order to choose, say, belief A, you would already have to have some other belief B that was the reason for your choice. And before you chose to hold belief B, you would need to have chosen some other belief C, and so on, and so on. At no point could you freely choose, unless you chose for no reason at all. 6) Therefore, our deliberative, reason-responsive choices are not free. That is my argument. Now that we are (hopefully) using our terms consistently, I hope you will share your criticism of it.dogdoc_{March 19, 2022
March
03
Mar
19
19
2022
10:06 PM
10
10
06
PM
PDT}

KF
Freedom is lawful in the broadest sense, it respects what used to be called principle.
Yes, free will operates within limits that we're given by our rational human nature. The structure of logic does not destroy free will, but instead it enables it. That's how we are able to freely choose options or even invent our own logical arguments about anything. Without the first principles, there's just irrational chaos which is not freedom. Free, rational choices require axioms that are given. That's the foundation of our reasoning process. It's not in disassociated "beliefs, values, feelings, etc" - those cannot be understood or processed independent of the logical process of our mind. Saying that there's an infinite regress of "reasons" is therefore false. We are rooted in a rational nature, and our reasoning is traced back to First Principles which are an essential to free will choice. By definition - rational free choice, requires the structure of reason, and is thereby limited. Nowhere can it be seen that the rational process "destroys free will". We freely choose - that is obvious.Silver Asiatic_{March 19, 2022
March
03
Mar
19
19
2022
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

DD, perhaps you have forgotten that the five points were presented by you above and you invited comment. Briefer comment above was brushed aside and claims of irrelevancy on our part were made. I therefore took time to explicitly respond point by point with remarks that a reasonable onlooker will readily see are responsive. They reveal a strawman fallacy based on misunderstanding human nature. What was your response? Another strawman fallacy, set in the trifecta context that leads to ad hominem. That tells us all we need to know. Depending, I may go through further points I judge that it would be helpful to an onlooker or for further record but your reaction above tells us a lot, none in your favour. Sad. KFkairosfocus_{March 19, 2022
March
03
Mar
19
19
2022
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

DogDoc
Note that my argument here is not that there is no free will at all; rather I argue against a particular sort of free will
You've been talking about free will without qualifiers. But what your argument is showing is merely that there are limits to human free choice. You've also refused to take up the consequences of determinism that your view entails. If we don't have free will then our choices are not the product of free, rational beings - but rather - they're determined.
As long as people are reasoning – imperfectly as it may be – about their choices, their reasons are the things I’ve been talking about
"Imperfect reasoning" includes statements like "I never tell the truth" or "I believe what I don't believe" or "Free choice means being determined by force to do something" or "freedom means doing whatever the coin flip tells me". Those are merely imperfectly reasoned statements. But you're including them as possible foundations for free will. You've repeatedly eliminated the first principles of logic from your system - so you'll end up with irrationality, which is a violation of human nature.Silver Asiatic_{March 19, 2022
March
03
Mar
19
19
2022
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT}

DogDoc
I did not say irrational choices were not free will.
You're violating rationality itself with that statement. An irrational statement is this: "Choice by a coin flip is an example of having a reason for a choice." You're saying that's compatible with free will. It's an irrational statement, but that's ok within your system.Silver Asiatic_{March 19, 2022
March
03
Mar
19
19
2022
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

WJM, Wow, thank you for your interesting post! I will be unavailable all of today and unable to devote sufficient time to respond, but please wait for my response.dogdoc_{March 19, 2022
March
03
Mar
19
19
2022
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT}

LCD,
It’s insanely comical that an proponent of no free will would botter to write a single comment to argue against free will...
This is the argument one inevitably hears in freshman philosophy classes and late-night dormatory discussions when everyone is stoned. There are two things wrong with it. First, if there is no free will then obviously whoever argues against free will does so because they have no choice, duh. (Note that my argument here is not that there is no free will at all; rather I argue against a particular sort of free will - not that you have read my argument carefully enough to understand that). Second, and more importantly, yours is the argument of someone who, their own naivete notwithstanding, imagines that whoever disagrees with them are making comically stupid mistakes. That will ensure you will never learn to appreciate the depth of your own ignorance.dogdoc_{March 19, 2022
March
03
Mar
19
19
2022
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

KF, It's so odd, no matter what people write you just spout off the same weird arguments that have nothing to do with the discussion. Ok then!dogdoc_{March 19, 2022
March
03
Mar
19
19
2022
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT}

Another Great Courses course on sale till tomorrow night
Great Philosophical Debates: Free Will and Determinism
https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/great-philosophical-debates-free-will-and-determinismjerry_{March 19, 2022
March
03
Mar
19
19
2022
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT}

DD, just for record: >>1) This argument uses “free will” to mean something that is not physically determined, nor random. The type of choices we’re interested in are those made deliberately by a rational agent, not choices that are made for no reason.>> a: Yes. >>2) Deliberative, free choices depend on the agent’s nature, or the way the agent is at the time of the choice.>> b: Our responsible, rational, self-moved, significantly free nature or constitution enables us to make rational choices, c: Yes it can be befuddled etc. >> An agent’s nature consists of their beliefs, desires, intentions, commitments, values, priorities, hopes, fears…>> d: Off target. Our nature has to do with our being capable of rational, responsible choice, however we find ourselves to be ultimately constituted. e: Our present worldviews, emotions etc may influence our inclinations but they are not our nature, we could speak of habits, beliefs, commitments, agendas but again such are influencers not the core of our nature. >> in other words any mental aspect of the agent that can contribute to their decisions.>> f: This is partly correct but in context due to the highlighted just above sets up a strawman. >>3) In order for one’s choice to be free, therefore, one must have freely chosen one’s own nature.>> g: Fallacious and inadvertently shows the problem that one must have the right constitution to freely choose, rational, responsible freedom. >>4) One cannot choose one’s own nature, in the same way one cannot lift oneself up by their own bootstraps (the idea is known as causa sui -self-causing – a logical contradiction)>> h: Error carried forward, based on a strawman caricature of our nature as minded, conscience guided self moved agents. Where, mind cannot be reduced to computationalism etc. >>. In order to choose one’s own desires, for example, one would already need to have the desires that supported that choice, and so on, ad infinitum.>> i: Some desires are built in, others are habitual, formed by cumulative impact of earlier choices that influence our inclinations. But one can choose that one no longer wishes a Full English for breakfast. >>5) Since we cannot freely choose our natures, and our deliberative choices depend on our natures, we do not have free will.>> j: Errors carried forward have now led to a knocked over strawman. k: It seems that underneath, the no freedom was the start point, and so we come full circle. KFkairosfocus_{March 19, 2022
March
03
Mar
19
19
2022
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT}

LCD, yes, but others don't necessarily see that as easily as you have, because you have learned to recognise the pattern. It seems, many objectors to ID and to other things simply do not realise how dangerous self referential arguments are, between circularity on one hand and self refutation on the other. Frequently, they fall into self referential incoherence. Here, they forget that if we do not have genuine freedom to choose [so we are dynamic-sochastic computational systems, or are driven by forces beyond reason, or are psychosocially conditioned etc], then choose to reason or to follow steps of reasoning, then to weigh up and judge soundly, then to conclude warrant and to acknowledge knowing a result, the "we" includes them. Oops. Then, it is futile to imagine that first principles of reason constrain freedom, no they ENABLE and rightly guide it. Start with, apart from distinct identity we cannot think or communicate coherently, as such rely on marking distinctions. And much more. KFkairosfocus_{March 19, 2022
March
03
Mar
19
19
2022
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT}

It's insanely comical that an proponent of no free will would botter to write a single comment to argue against free will as if s/he would think( THE OPPOSITE) that the others would have free will to change their minds. :lol: But probably s/he didn't have free will to post (his) comment here , s/he had to because s/he have no free will. Must be very annoying to be forced(remember no free will!) to post dumb ideas on internet. People, why botter to argue with somebody whose ideas are just self-defeated concepts?Lieutenant Commander Data_{March 19, 2022
March
03
Mar
19
19
2022
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT}

If anyone wants to understand decision making. The Great Courses has several courses on sale today and tomorrow that are very inexpensive. https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/how-you-decide-the-science-of-human-decision-making https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/art-of-critical-decision-making https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/mathematical-optimization-techniques https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/moral-decision-making-how-to-approach-everyday-ethics https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/thinking-like-an-economist-a-guide-to-rational-decision-makingjerry_{March 19, 2022
March
03
Mar
19
19
2022
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT}

Beyond self, there is only pure consciousness. What the "self" is, is a reality program consciousness is having a particular set of experiences through. When you realize you can change that program to whatever you want, including what you want, you have as much free will as is possible.William J Murray_{March 19, 2022
March
03
Mar
19
19
2022
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT}

Dogdoc, First let me say, bravo, thanks for making such a fantastic argument here. I find you argument incredibly interesting and very stimulating. Second, I don't know how long you've been reading here at UD, but a lot of people here "rebut" arguments by rote; they see certain keywords and throw out largely canned counter-arguments that may or may not have anything to with your actual argument. I just want to explore the concept of free will some. I think we can agree that being sentient, our inescapable, fundamental reason for every choice we make is one of preference towards maximum personal enjoyment, expressed in countless forms around the world, writ large in every institution humans construct. Also, we find ourselves in a fully contextualized experience, both inner and outer, which translates that fundamental urge to enjoy, as much as possible, into particular choices. In this situation, I think we may be able to agree that the first thing that translates that urge into a selection of choices is what I call our root reality program, or our deep-seated, assumed in the subconscious, rarely even noticed belief about what reality is, what the nature of our existence is, and how in general how all that works. If I remember correctly, you said something to the effect that we can't just, on the fly, choose to believe something, like "God is a ham sandwich." This was an example, if I read you correctly, of the inner state of self (beliefs, desires, etc.) that determine choices. Not physically, but in the abstract sense. We have abstract inner qualities that determine abstract choices in our minds before we attempt to enact them physically. Let's say we realize this is the nature of our situation. In that situation, we know that our preferential choices are being filtered first by our deep beliefs about reality and existence. We can go further from here and realize that all of our inner, personal qualities, our emotions, thoughts, and choices, are downstream of that: our urge to enjoy initially filtered through our reality program. IMO, this governs how we think, react and feel, how we make decisions, which has filled us up with an extended "reality concept." It seems to me that most of us find ourselves in a fully automated system that we largely don't even question. The primordial enjoyment urge is just naturally filtered through what is a deeply entrenched reality system and is channeled into the same kind of choices on a continual basis. We experience that as just "what reality is," and not really even a choice other than at the output end where we only have a small number of choices to choose from that are compatible with our reality system. All other choices get filtered out, or are rejected by the processing of the urge through that system. Now let's try this on for size: let's say that the enjoyment urge is just a universal necessity for sentient beings, and that is utterly universal. Let's say that what makes an individual a "self" in any meaningful sense of the word is not that primordial urge, because that is universal to all sentient beings. Rather, the "self" is the unique, full personal reality program, so to speak, that exists between that primordial urge to enjoy and any decision that person makes. The urge isn't determining any decision; it providing the original impetus to make any decision at all. The decision is self-determinative; the "self" being that full, personal reality program. Now, what if one finds themselves in the following state of self: they see that this is going on, that their "self" is really a reality program, and that they can deliberately change it to whatever they want, however they choose, by believing whatever they wish. They see that their particularized preferences are the result of a reality program filtering and translating the fundamental, basic, general urge into particular preferences. IOW, they see that they can actually change their own particular preferences by changing who they are. The state you find yourself in is "I can choose to prefer and enjoy anything, not just what I currently prefer or enjoy." IOW, you find yourself in this situation where you see everything about your "self" as being available to choice and change in an unlimited fashion, other than being driven by this general urge towards enjoyment. Here we see that "preference" is a term that only applies to self; preferences are particular interpretations of the "urge to enjoy" that are filtered and translated by the reality program of self. IMO, this is the only proper conceptualization of free will exists; when you realize you are not your self, but are consciousness experiencing "a" particular self, and you can fashion that self however you want. But, you may ask, what is the "want" in that situation Where does it come from, if not the self? Of course, the "want" can only be expressed in terms of what the "self" has experienced and can imagine; but the choices have been greatly expanded because you can choose anything, while knowing that there are things you don't even know about nor can even imagine. Before, there wasn't really even a choice; the choices were determined by the structure of self; but now, your choices are not determined by the structure of self, even if the available options are, because you can change your self to fully enjoy any of the available options. To simplify this: you encounter an unenjoyable X. Your reality program decision is to change, avoid or eliminate X, or perhaps just find some way to endure it if you can't do any of the first three options. What doesn't usually occur to us is this option: I can change myself so that I enjoy X. So I would summarize at this point this way: free will is a capacity to choose from options towards maximum personal enjoyment, and is proportional to the available options. Free will is not related to what you specifically choose, so it is not reason-determinative. Free will, rather, is about how free the will is, meaning the size of the pool of options available. An analogy is: a horse has virtually no free will when it is locked in a stable. It has more free will when it is in a corral. It has more free will when it is confined by the fence of a 10,000 acre ranch. It has more free will when it is not confined by any fence, yet is still confined by gravity, terrain, etc. I realize that's not the kind of free will you are arguing about, but my point is that while you're never free of inner and external context, you can change and/or expand that context, which can result in entirely different choices and entirely different reasons for making those choices. You can change the reasons, and thus the choices. Yes, you are changing the reasons for a reason, but you've expanded the field of reasons. The inescapable, primordial reason is "urge towards enjoyment." How much freedom we have to express that fundamental, non-determinative reason in our choices depends on how many choices we have as a product of internal and external context. The more choices we have available, the more freedom we have. I don't think "free will" can functionally be anything other than that kind of commodity.William J Murray_{March 19, 2022
March
03
Mar
19
19
2022
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT}

F/N: My more complete response, to the evident lurking dynamics, is here https://uncommondescent.com/informatics/lfp-54-j-c-wright-on-the-haunting-morlockery-of-many-today-in-the-neo-gnostic-nihilistic-technoplutocracy/ KFkairosfocus_{March 19, 2022
March
03
Mar
19
19
2022
02:13 AM
2
02
13
AM
PDT}

DD, significant freedom is not arbitrariness. It is our endowment of rationality that allows us to sense pervasive first principles and choose whether we will heed them. I note, you have communicated in English text using ASCII code. These and other aspects of thought, speech and reality are pervaded by distinct identity as core first principle of right reason (where, non contradiction and excluded middle are close corollaries). These enable our rational, responsible freedom, they do not undermine it. Freedom is lawful in the broadest sense, it respects what used to be called principle. Lawlessness or willful unprincipled-ness is arbitrary, chaotic and typically abusive towards others, as say Kant's Categorical Imperative highlights. While, being free, we can to some extent violate principles, we cannot avert consequences, down to those of self referential incoherence and principle of explosion involving here loss of ability to think straight and discern true from false soundly. That has consequences, and that we have rationality and conscience guided responsibility thus volition, is an antecedent of power to choose. Would you rather that we were simply blind dynamic stochastic entities incapable of what Plato termed self-motion? Would you then have credibility as rational, or reasonable? KFkairosfocus_{March 19, 2022
March
03
Mar
19
19
2022
12:43 AM
12
12
43
AM
PDT}

Vivid, Thinking more about the way you put it:
I would classify the above as what makes up my “self” and consequently my “self” determines my choices, my choices are self determined.
Maybe I should summarize the argument by saying, "Our choices are self-determined, but our selves are not."dogdoc_{March 18, 2022
March
03
Mar
18
18
2022
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PDT}

Hey VL, thank you, appreciate it :)dogdoc_{March 18, 2022
March
03
Mar
18
18
2022
08:41 PM
8
08
41
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply