BothAndBlog Forum

Free Will and Other Popular Delusions, or not?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/631949

Since the Metaphysics, Yet Again thread has faded into the usual counter-accusations of "woo" and "non-sense", I thought I'd resurrect the ghost of Christmas past, by opening the Pandora's Box of "FreeWill", and related philosophical conundra. A recent article in SKEPTIC magazine -- not noted for promoting "woo" -- addresses a wide range of controversial meta-physical topics, including : Time, Causality, Consciousness, Self, and Free Will, under the heading of "Disillusioned". His calm rational approach to the controversy may give us some new ways to dialog about such non-empirical & immaterial, hence philosophical, subject-matter. Below are links to the article, and to my own review.

Disillusioned : https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&u=go ... d=97d5e9fc

Self-Deception or Self-Determinism? : http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page26.html

Note -- "Meta-Physical" = non-empirical concepts ; moot topics

Metaphysics :
Topics of metaphysical investigation include existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility. Metaphysics is considered one of the four main branches of philosophy, along with epistemology, logic, and ethics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

Volition is, like every other nonlinear dynamic system, deterministic. (Btw, introspection is illusory, and I am a compatibilist.) So what question/s are you trying to raise with the OP? — 180 Proof

What caused you to become a compatiblist? Did you have the option to reach a different conclusion? Can you trace an unbroken chain of causation beck to the Big Bang? Or was your own reasoning ability a meta-physical Cause of your decision? FWIW, I am also a compatiblist. However, if we both have free thought, you may not agree with how I arrived at my summation of the pertinent causes of Freedom Within Determinism.

My FreeWill questions are expressed in the linked blog post. For example : "Is FreeWill Fake Agency?" ; " is it Self-deception or Self-determinism?" Several other questions are addressed by the author of the SKEPTIC article. For instance : " “Voluntary behavior . . . Is an emergent phenomenon at the level of the entire organism embedded in physical reality”. That’s what I call “Holism”, or “Systems Theory”.

A link to the article is in the blog post. For those who may be on the fence, the second page of the blog has links to more detailed discussions of the perennial Free Will vs Determinism controversy.

Is FreeWill Fake Agency? :
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page26.html

Where did I say anything about "metaphysical determinism"? — Gnomon
Context + this:
"What caused you to become a compatiblist? Did you have the option to reach a different conclusion? Can you trace an unbroken chain of causation beck to the Big Bang? Or was your own reasoning ability a meta-physical Cause of your decision?" — Gnomon — 180 Proof

Oh, I see. You put the apple of a FreeWill vs Determinism context together with the mention of a "meta-physical" orange, and concluded "metaphysical determinism". As a Compatiblist myself, I am not a proponent of that particular line of reasoning (see Fatalism below). Instead, I was suggesting that human Reason could be an emergent "meta-physical" (mental not physical) Cause of forging a new link in the physical chain of Causation. The ability to choose between probabilistic options, is a determinant of the subsequent branch of contingent causation. In other words, Reason is your get-out-of-bondage-to-Fate-free-card.

FreeWill is not an "illusion", it's a worldview. It's a meta-physically (memes, not genes) evolved belief system that allows creatures with reasoning ability to statistically predict the future course of events, and to make rational choices instead of knee-jerk reactions to current events. FreeWill is not self-deception, it's Self Determinism.

Note 1. In the blog post prior to the one linked in the OP, I discussed the connection between scientific Reductionism, and the ancient worldview of Fatalism. There, I said :
Another divergence in our philosophy is between Determinism, narrowly defined, and FreeWill, as the ability to choose based on rational evidence rather than on fatalistic necessity. But Determinism is a belief and a premise, not an objective fact. And Determinists typically assume a linear chain of physical causes only. Yet they ignore the influence of feed-back loops in the human mind, which become the non-physical Causes we call "beliefs". The behavior of lower animals might result from external influences only. But the human mind is able to interrupt the flow of physical causation with feedback loops that insert new learning links in the chain (creative ideas). When those new links are perceived as different from our beliefs and preconceptions, the mind begins to look for a way to get back on course. Which is known as "Reasoning".
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page24.html

Note 2. Then, in the following blog post (caused in part by the prior post) I said :
After those scenic side-tracks, he finally gets around to “unpacking free will”. For his analysis, you can read the article. Here, I’ll only mention a couple of points. 1) “Trying to account for choice at the level of neurons . . . wouldn’t provide any causal account”. That would be like looking for Meaning in the circuits of a motherboard. 2) “Voluntary behavior . . . Is an emergent phenomenon at the level of the entire organism embedded in physical reality”. That’s what I call “Holism”, or “Systems Theory”. Finally, he looks at “Freewill as Phenomenal Experience”, and says “Although this naïve view has largely been abandoned by serious thinkers, it can still be useful : what difference does it make if you believe that free will is an illusion? Would you no longer make any choices at all?”. In his considered opinion, “free will is a puzzle but it is not an illusion”. To that, I say “amen”.
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page27.html


In short, fatalism is the theory that there is some destiny that we cannot avoid, although we are able to take different paths up to this destiny. Determinism, however, is the theory that the entire path of our life is decided by earlier events and actions.
https://www.mytutor.co.uk/answers/10942 ... -fatalism/

Risks are problems of contingent causation; they are problems due to unforeseen or uncontrollable causal processes instigated by human action
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40878435

https://www.papermasters.com/images/fatalism.jpg

Not meta-physical. The will does as it has come to be. Time is fundamental as motion/movement/causality since there was no stillness stopping everything. Consciousness came to be along the way since before life there wasn't any; same with life. The notion of a self is the result of experiencing. No mysteries left. — PoeticUniverse

Again, my coinage of a new spelling for an old concept goes right over the reductive head. Since, by "Meta-Physical" I mean the non-physical (e.g. mental) aspects of reality, I am thinking of changing the spelling to "Menta-Physical", to indicate that I am referring to subjective Ideas, not objective objects, Nor to super-natural spooks. For example, Genes are physical, while Memes are Menta-Physical : physical substrate but mental (imaginary) expression.

That invisible-but-knowable mind-stuff (ideas ; information) was the subject matter of Aristotle's second volume of On Nature. In the first volume, he presented the then-current state of physical science --- as known by direct sensory observation, without modern sense-enhancing technology. And then, in the subsequent (meta-) volume, he discussed the contemporary philosophical opinions about the natural world, which included Ideas, Speculations, Concepts, Theories, and Principles. Those were known only by introspection, or by exchanges of memes (words). Although some of his idealistic notions, such as "Form", were presented as-if realistic, like the Buddha, he was trying to avoid speculating about anything beyond the reach of sensory experience (i.e. super-natural). Yet, he lumped our sixth sense of Reason (nous) and Introspection (mental imagery) under the general heading of "phusis" (nature), which materialistic moderns interpret as "Physics", but not "Psychology".

Human "Will" is completely natural, but it is, by my definition, Menta-Physical. Reductionists typically try to reduce everything to its material substrate. But, that cannot account for Holistic phenomena in human culture. One such immaterial concept is "Health", which is derived from the root for "Wholeness". Another is "diet", which does not refer to any particular food, but to a generalized notion. All philosophical and scientific "Principles" are generalizations, that are never found in Nature, but only in human Culture. Likewise, all universal concepts, such as "the Universe", do not refer to any particular thing, but to a system that we can comprehend only in metaphors and analogies with physical objects.

So, the future-oriented Will is an emergent property of a physical Brain, sophisticated enough to generate a Menta-Physical (nee Meta-Physical) rational Mind. It's not a material object, but a motivating mental concept. And those who can't distinguish the difference, are shooting at a will-o-the-wisp.

PS___No mysteries? When did you achieve Enlightenment and Omniscience? Should I address you as "Bhodi"?

PPS___The original Buddha typically avoided speculations about supra-mundane concepts, except such principles as "Nirvana", which could be interpreted as a mundane state-of-mind, not a heavenly realm. Ironically, modern Buddhists do attribute super-natural feats to all bodhisattvas,

The Five Marks of the Mental :
features that set characteristically mental phenomena apart from the characteristically physical phenomena. These five marks (intentionality, consciousness, free will, teleology, and normativity)
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10 ... 01084/full

The Soul as Intellect :
Controversy surrounds almost every aspect of De Anima, not least because in it Aristotle characterizes the active mind—a topic mentioned nowhere else in his entire corpus—as ‘separate and unaffected and unmixed, being in its essence actuality’ (chôristos kai apathês kai amigês, tê(i) ousia(i) energeia; DA iii 5, 430a17–18) and then also as ‘deathless and everlasting’ (athanaton kai aidion; , 430a23). This comes as no small surprise to readers of De Anima, because Aristotle had earlier in the same work treated the mind (nous) as but one faculty (dunamis) of the soul (psuchê), and he had contended that the soul as a whole is not separable from the body \
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aris ... -mind.html
Note -- In my thesis, the human Mind is also a form of Energy, in the sense of EnFormAction.

MYSTERY IS IN THE MIND
UNCERTAINTY IS IN THE MIND, AND IN PHYSICS
https://www.scienceabc.com/wp-content/u ... ciple1.jpg

↪180 Proof Oh, I see.[/quote]

It's a miracle! The blind now see. The question remains though : see what?
Did you take the red pill, or the blue?

66525362.jpg

5. How appealing is being semi-autonomous? We have free will but only in a limited sense. — Agent Smith

Yes. I call it "FreeWill within Determinism".

Free Will versus Free Won't :
Since the question of conscious choice is integral to the notion of morality, Shermer asks if we are indeed free to choose our actions. Some secularists claim that human behavior is pre-determined by an unbroken chain of cause & effect stretching back to the Big Bang. Nevertheless, no one actually believes that he is a mindless zombie driven by ancient urges. So, Shermer intoduces the concept of “Free Won't”. In our contingent world, humans are never totally free to make unconstrained moral choices. Only an agent outside of our space-time world would be perfectly free. But a current theory of how the brain works is based on a business corporation. Normally, most decisions are made on lower levels, then relayed to a decider-in-chief at the top, who only exercises veto power to stop processes that are already in motion. This modified determinism model was made necessary by recent experiments indicating that conscious decisions are delayed reactions to subconscious motives. Those computer-like cause & effect processes present go/no-go options for the conscience to allow or deny. That's why human behavior is unpredictable, as compared to natural agents. For us, a fork in the causal path is an opportunity for creative, or moral, action.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page63.html
Note -- Michael Shermer is editor of SKEPTIC magazine.

Free won't decisions aren't free of the will either. No decisions are made in consciousness; consciousness reflects the brain product that has already finished and took time, plus even more time has passed while the representation in consciousness was being built and woven into the flow. — PoeticUniverse

So, you are a Drone controlled by Fate, or a Cyborg doing the Will of the hive? And your Artistry and Poetry are done un-consciously by an AI program. All this time I thought you were a regular guy.

What if one cannot learn because the will has become much too fixated? Doom. — PoeticUniverse

Ouch! That sounds like cynical Fatalism. Whatever happened to the romantic Fatalism of the Greeks?

I took "the red pill" and with formerly blind eyes I clearly saw that "There Is No Red Pill". — 180 Proof

So you had no choice but to remain in illusory ignorance of reality. The "blue pill" is the default choice to avoid learning the hard truth of Existentialism. However, the "chop wood" quote, from Akira-sensei, sounds existentialist to me. Except that Existentialism requires "an act of will" by a "free and responsible agent". So, I guess the non-choice to remain bound in blindness is actually Cynicism. No?

The terms "red pill" and "blue pill" refer to a choice between the willingness to learn a potentially unsettling or life-changing truth by taking the red pill or remaining in contented ignorance with the blue pill.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_pill_and_blue_pill

"Cynicism is an attitude characterized by a general distrust of others' motives."
If you distrust the one offering a "red pill", you by dereliction of choice, choose the pill-not-taken.