TPF : Free Will vs Determinism

[Gnomon]

They wouldn't get vaccinated and couldn't, so they died from Covid. — PoeticUniverse

Not all anti-vaxxers are Fatalistic. Some exercised their "Free Won't", to rely on God instead of fallible doctors. That's Faith, not Fatalism. OK . . . fatal Faith, if you insist.

[Gnomon]

The will itself excercises "free won't" just like any other decision/choice analysis that it performs. — PoeticUniverse

Who is this "Will" you speak of? Do I know him? Can I introduce him to my Will? Actually, he calls himself "Me". And his screenname is "Gnomon the gnarly gnome", who sometimes masquerades as the robot "Will Robinson". The fool thinks he's choosing clever bon mots to post on this forum, when he's actually imprisoned in a dungeon of illusion, and has only himself -- his imaginary self -- to talk to. He is only free to won't what he wants, but can't have. He pretends to exercise his freedom as a Faller who chose to gravitate. But, he feels free to post gnarly nonsense on the foolosophy forum.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/lowres.cartoon ... 00_low.jpg

[Gnomon]

"The red pill" (choice) is an – perhaps the – illusion, and from this, we can infer reality (à la causality). — 180 Proof

Yes. That's how Cypher inferred a juicy steak, when he rejected the Hadean underworld of harsh reality to the comforting illusion of normality in the Matrix. "Ignorance is bliss" and inference is your personal truth.

To me the sensei's maxim simply means that, however much we change ourselves, we do not changed anything else. — 180 Proof

That's also how I interpret Existentialism. You can't change how the world works, but you can change your Frame, your perspective. Back when I first heard of the Existentialist philosophy, it sounded sour & pessimistic, compared to my Christian worldview. But now, it seems to be just the other way around. Instead of patiently waiting for salvation in another life, I just try to make the best of the "bird in hand" life. Not by escaping from the chain of cause & effect, but by making free choices for my personal behavior, including attitude adjustment. So, the sensei makes sense to me.

Privileged Frame of Reference :
The observer's privileged perspective is due to the freedom to aim as you will
http://www.faithfulscience.com/relativi ... rence.html

No. There is no "non-choice", Gnomon. Choosing "the red pill" just makes no difference with regard to reality. — 180 Proof

I agree. But to freely choose the red pill is a decision to change your worldview. That doesn't make any difference in Reality, but it makes a world of difference in Ideality : your mental model of reality. If we had no freedom, there would be no change. But my model of the world is completely different from that of my younger self. Was I fated to make that mental adjustment?

I like to refer to Roman poet Lucretius' notion of a "swerve" (course change) to illustrate how I view a modicum of Free Will within a general context of Determinism. I can't change Reality, but I can change how I view the world, and how I adapt my behavior (swerve) to Reality. When I'm driving, I can't move that obstacle in the road, but I am free to swerve and miss it. Fight Fate!

"if the atoms never swerve so as to originate some new movement that will snap the bonds of fate, the everlasting sequence of cause and effect --- what is the source of free will possessed by living things . . .?" Lucretius (c, 99-- 55 BC) On the Nature of Things.

FREELY FRAMED PERSPECTIVE
http://gnomon.enformationism.info/Image ... ective.PNG

[Gnomon]

We could pretend, imitating air-heads,
Posting nonsense on purpose in the threads,
But that then we meant to do this way,
Noting history, too, so ‘random’ holds not its sway. — PoeticUniverse

My personal worldview is not reality, but a mental model of what's out there. So you could call it "pretense" or "nonsense", but that label will also apply to you. If you are not free to choose between Sense and Nonsense, then how can you think of yourself as Rational?

Rational behavior refers to a decision-making process that is based on making choices that result in the optimal level of benefit or utility for an individual.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/ra ... havior.asp

"What a strange suggestion, to deny the existence of freewill . . . I have no proof that you have free will, and you will never be able to show otherwise . . . Without free will, there could be no rational thought. As a consequence, it is quite impossible for science and philosophy to deny free will."
Quantum Chance : Nonlocality, Teleportation and Other Quantum Marvels by Nicolas Gisin
Note -- you can't prove FreeWill, because by definition it can't be replicated.

[Gnomon]

I wonder if all those people you are mentioning understand and use the term "free will" in its simple, common meaning leading to the unequivocal existence of free will. I have heard a lot of people denying the existence of "free will" but I still wait for sound arguments that support that position. — Alkis Piskas

I agree that most of the argumentation on this forum is futile, because we have two different definitions of Free Will. Some black & white thinkers assume the term refers to absolute god-like freedom, which would allow us to work Magic in the world. But, I can't imagine that many reasonable people could hold such an outlandish view. In my use of the term, FreeWill is limited and constrained by the causal laws of Reality. But I view Rational Choice as a causal link in the chain of Determinism.

Free Will within Determinism :
“Determinism is a long chain of cause & effect, with no missing links.
Freewill is when one of those links is smart enough to absorb a cause and modify it before passing it along. . . ." ___Yehya
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page67.html

[Gnomon]

The fixed will chooses all the time; it's mostly about providing for future. — PoeticUniverse

What's the difference between "fixed will" and "free will"? Is it totally bound, hence not able to choose at all. or merely limited in the scope of its choices? Is there a way to measure the degree of fixation? Are we like Sisyphus, condemned to rock 'n' roll for ever, but taking some satisfaction that we are playing our pre-defined role in the great scheme of things to the best of our ability? Ironically, king Sisy was like Adam & Eve, punished by the gods for a mutinous attempted act of free choice. Who do you think is punishing us with the desire for freedom without the power to choose?

"Will" is an expression of future tense, so it implies some ability to choose between one apparent path and another. I say "apparent" because our conjectures into a time not-yet present are speculations, not confirmed facts. Most animals have some power to anticipate the short-term future, and the agency to change their own behavior to intersect with the preferred option. But human Will Power is enhanced by our ability to speculate farther and more accurately into the potential future.

When you scan a restaurant menu, do you just accept Fate, and point at random --- or do you pretend to choose on a whim, rather than compulsion? In my case, at first I sample a variety of options, then decide which suits my personal preference, which becomes my default choice. Or am I condemned to eat Tako (octopus sushi) forever, even though the smell nauseates me?


We see that 'random' doesn't make for free will. — PoeticUniverse

How do we see that? When statisticians calculate a historical trajectory into the future, is that attempt to see a pattern-within-randomness, doomed to failure. Would you call it "absurd" that we can't see very far into the future? Seems to me that's just normal, as in a Normal Curve. However, in a Galton Board model of randomness, even though the Bell Curve is "fixed" the randomized balls are free to fall anywhere within the boundaries of the curve. The balls are rigidly constrained (fixed) by physics , but humans are freedom-loving change-agents, who can choose to bend (not break) the law.

Freedom Within Randomness :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvHiee7gs9Y

Regular Order within Random Chaos :
Admittedly, our home world is rather “messy” in some ways, but I prefer to think of it more positively as “order out of chaos”. The chaotic part of reality is what scientists know as Randomness. The orderly part is known by religious people as Design. Put them together, and you get a world with enough order to produce living creatures, and to be understandable to their minds.
http://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page55.html

Intentional versus Involuntary :
In human cultures, we can easily distinguish the works of Nature from the products of human intention. That's because Nature is on auto-pilot, while humans have hands on the wheel
. . . . The process of evolution can be construed as an ongoing reckoning of Cause & Effect events. Another way to put it is to say that Natural Selection is the product of freedom-of-action (randomness) and constraints-on-action (selection).
http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page51.html

[Gnomon]

I've no idea what orifice you've pulled this bon mot out of but it seems like a projection. — 180 Proof

I wasn't trying to put sweet "bon mots" in your mouth (or any other orifice) ; just noting a common saying intended to justify being resigned to remain in a static state of willful ignorance. Are you "woke" to the reality of cognizance?
PS__why would you assume that I was accusing you of blissful ignorance? Are you accusing me of projecting my own blindness onto you? "Let he who is without ignorance cast the first bon mot" :joke:

The so-called "choice of red pill or blue pill" doesn't apply to intrinsic ignorance. — 180 Proof

Where you are free to choose to focus your attention on the negative space of "intrinsic ignorance", I opt to aim my frame at the positive potential of self-enformation (selective education). Consequently, I don't think of humanity as benighted by Nescience, but as the beneficiaries of Science.

Whatever lies beyond the limited scope of the human mind may be "Intrinsic Ignorance", and some may choose to remain mired in "willful ignorance", but those of us on this forum are blessed with the innate human power of Reason : the power to choose the path to Enlightenment, either within or without.

TURN TOWARD THE LIGHT AND THE SHADOW IS BEHIND YOU
enlightened2bblog.jpg

[Gnomon]

PS__why would you assume that I was accusing you of blissful ignorance? — Gnomon
As I quoted you previously,
"Ignorance is bliss" and inference is your personal truth. — 180 Proof

You are quick to take offense at generic statements, and also quick to make specific offensive assertions. But I just shrug-off such accusations as :
A more "nescient" sentiment – which, being a child of this zeitgeist, I also can't shake-off – has never been expressed — 180 Proof

But that's OK with me, as long as we keep dialoging. I learn from both positive and negative arguments. Obviously, you have given a lot of thought to philosophical questions. But your conclusions seem much gloomier than mine. To each his own . . .

[Gnomon]

so this kind of ‘free’ is not adding anything extra to the regular will, since mechanisms like the will are already free to operate. — PoeticUniverse

I get the impression that you are still reacting to a definition of "free will" that I am not espousing. I specifically stated that the "freedom" I'm talking about is "limited". Which, I would think, should fit your definition of "regular" will. Except, there may be some minor distinction that I'm missing. :brow:

Note that this diametric is orthogonal to the other axis—that of a fixed will dependent on what one has become up to the moment versus a non-fixed (free?) will not depending on anything, if one still wants that in order to be ‘free’ (‘twould be a mess—not anything could function). — PoeticUniverse

I'm not familiar with the notion of "fixed" versus "free" willpower. I Googled "fixed will" and got no applicable links. So, I suppose you have your own personal definition of the term. I"d like to hear how you would distinguish between my notion of "limited FreeWill" and your "fixed Will". On the face of it, "fixed" sounds pretty final, and not very desirable. I have been using the common phrase "Free Will" in the usual philosophical sense of Agency as noted below. To me, that definition sounds more like "limited" than "fixed". :chin:

Agency :
The term “free will” has emerged over the past two millennia as the canonical designator for a significant kind of control over one’s actions.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

We see that 'random' harms the will if it messes up the path the will was taking. — PoeticUniverse

That may be true, but randomness also breaks the chain of Cause & Effect with an Acausal link. It's that gap in causation that may provide a way to escape from the bonds of Determinism. But, it takes intelligence and reasoning ability to take advantage of the opportunity of arbitrariness in place of necessity.

“Determinism is a long chain of cause & effect, with no missing links.
Freewill is when one of those links is smart enough to absorb a cause and modify it before passing it along. . . ." ___Yehya
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page67.html

The deeper the fixation, the harder it is to learn or get deprogrammed. — PoeticUniverse

By "fixation" are you talking about "self-deception"? If so, I must agree. But philosophically-inclined people should be open to self-examination to weed-out false beliefs. And yet, on this forum, we still find "fixations" that are resistant to criticism. And a common issue raised in Free Will topics concerns whether the freedom of agency is a self-deceptive illusion. But I don't know any sane person who believes he is free to jump off a tall building with impunity. If some do feel that free, they certainly require some "deprogramming". For the record, I'm not talking about such extreme cases, but about examples of "regular will".

As for Super Determinism, this is just determination all the way through, with no 'random'. . . . .2. The quantum particle measurements ending in probabilities may be… — PoeticUniverse

I'm not clear on whether you were arguing from a "pro" or "con" position. But FWIW, I don't depend on the weirdness of quantum randomness to open the door to freedom of the Will. The warm, wet brain does not seem amenable to Superposition. On the macro level of human behavior, the quantum randomness averages-out to the familiar Cause & Effect, that we rely on as we make our Choices. It's more telling that our notion of Necessity is a general assumption, not an empirical fact. Even hard-nosed scientists are aware of the vagaries of reality, so they don't assume "Super-Determinism", but merely Mundane Regularity.

"Although the intuition that our mind chooses its actions 'at will' begs for an explanation, quantum physics is no solution" ___Stanislas Dehaene

"He who says all things happen of necessity cannot criticize another who says that not all things happen of necessity. For he has to admit that the assertion also happens of necessity."
___Epicurus

PS___ Since Consciousness and WillPower are subjective, ultimately what counts is not objective evidence, but that you feel free. If not, your outlook may be clouded by the bitterness of desires frustrated by Fate. If, however, you don't feel free, then no evidence or argument will convince you otherwise. So, to paraphrase Clint Eastwood : "do you feel free, punk?" :joke:

[Gnomon]

I turned 74 today and have had good luck so far; the world can't seem to kill me off, — PoeticUniverse

Like you, I'm a seventh decade survivor of a world that has a million ways to kill you. I even lived through 4 years in and around VietNam. So, instead of feeling picked-on by Fate, I feel blessed by the freedom to choose my poison --- a very slow one.

Sabine Hossenfelder has been espousing Super Determinism of late, if you want to look into it, and so here we are, between its specter and the escape as the randomness option, of all the binds and rocks and hard places to be in… — PoeticUniverse

Thanks, but I'd rather not stare into the abyss of Deep Determinism. Anyway, I don't depend on erratic randomness to spring me from the inevitability of Cause & Effect. Instead, I'm always on the lookout for those tiny cracks in my dungeon that give me an opportunity to choose to use a spoon to widen them into an escape hole --- or rabbit hole (look before you leap!). Since those openings are rare, we must be ready to take advantage of every break from Fate we can get. :grimace:
Note : I googled SD, and saw that it's over my pointy little head.

Back on the topic of Free Choice -- Free Will :
I'm currently reading a novel, Ken Follett's Third Twin, that involves scientists doing twin studies to determine how much Genetics and Society (Nature & Nurture) are responsible for our personal behavior. I'm guessing that they will eventually get around to discovering how unpredictable personality quirks can emerge from those more mechanistic influences. Some identical twins display unique traits that can't be explained by genetic determinism. Could it be . . . oh I don't know . . . maybe . . . Free Will?

"Although the case for free will cannot be rigorously proven, those of us who believe in it need feel no threat from the findings of the Human Genome Initiative."
https://counterbalance.org/genetics/myth-body.html

Twins: similar and unique? :
https://www.leidenpsychologyblog.nl/art ... and-unique