TPF : Free Will vs Determinism

[Gnomon]

In science, there is one thing, mass-energy, and it is conserved, unable to be created or destroyed;. . . .The more responsible believers, some even theologians, note the begging of the question that leads toward an infinite regress . . . . The first wrong step in direction was to deny that the simplest can give rise to the more and more complex, — PoeticUniverse

I have no problem with Conservation of that-which-exists. But since animated Mass-Energy is eventually embalmed as cold dead Entropy, I can't accept it as eternally existing, in any constructive sense. That single "substance" of reality may be conserved as it flips back & forth between Cause & Effect --- subsequent to the original Instantiation. But when & where did it do its phase changing prior to the point-of-beginning of space-time?

Presumably, in the mathematical Singularity there was no actual mass or energy, only statistical Potential. Once their flip-flopping has begun, there is one-more-thing necessary : the Laws that regulate when & how they change. Unregulated change would result in random chaos. So, "responsible believers" agree that Mass-Energy exists only in space-time, which is destined to end in Heat Death (max Entropy). Who or what was the Lawmaker or Potentiator?

↪180 Proof responds to my criticism of the fringes of cutting-edge science as-if I reject the work of serious scientists for religious reasons. But, I have no religion. So, my criticism is merely Philosophical. And is focused on implicit assumptions rather than pragmatic utility. For example, I am dubious of feeble attempts to explain away the Creation Event, by postulating an infinite regression of Big Bangs (question begging??). Since they have no empirical evidence of anything beyond the bounds of our known universe, my layman's guess is as good as their expert shot-in-the-dark.

My typical response to the Complexity-from-Simplicity question is to define the Ultimate Singularity. Just as you are a singular Self composed of millions of interacting parts, the Whole of which our world is an active part is a Singularity : no parts, just Potential (Tendency not Actuality). So, I think space-time Mass-Energy is dependent on infinite-eternal Potential. Nothing comes from Nothing; but Everything comes from Potential.

Singularity : where the curvature of spacetime becomes infinite.

Coincidence vs Creation :
Physicists tend to take Matter & Energy for granted, without questioning their origins, or their philosophical meaning. Matter is merely the furniture of Nature. Energy is the builder of natural things. But as Materialists, they have a problem with the Laws of Nature, since laws are normally found only in human Culture. Laws are aspects of human thought & behavior, as exemplified in Government and Religion.

[Gnomon]

In my opinion, free will isn't a popular delusion, its a useful lie. It just renders the world so much more tangible, way easier to work with. — john27

Those who call FreeWill an illusion or delusion, were encouraged by the Libet experiment, showing that the brain is prepared to act before the mind is even aware of choosing to act. But even Libet didn't interpret that as evidence of no Choice. It's true that we typically become aware of what the body is doing, only after the act is underway. So our consciousness of the act is an afterthought. But there is also a momentary gap between the brain's "action potential" and the body's movement. (see "time delay" below)

That's where the "free won't" comes in, giving us an opportunity to veto the action. That notion came from Michael Shermer, editor of SKEPTIC magazine. But FreeWill is more than just a negation. Your ability to imagine and anticipate the future allows you to program your brain to act quickly and appropriately, without waiting for your mind to become aware of what the body is doing.

A vivid example of that train-the-brain notion is found in sports events. Athletes practice, practice, practice, and get "coached-up" to be aware of what they did right and wrong. So, in the game they don't have to think before doing. Steph Curry, weaving & pinwheeling toward the basket, has given his brain a goal, then allows his voluntary neural control system to "go get it". Consequently, even though he is moving like a blur, and flying off-balance through the air, he makes the basket. As the old TV ad said of Michael Jordan, don't think, "just do it". But even the GOAT couldn't make such magic, without practice, to communicate your will to the brain.

Another way to train the brain, is in the process we call "building character". We learn from our mistakes, by becoming aware of what we did wrong. That ethical awareness tells the brain your values, which become subconscious motives for future behavior. So, if you choose to believe that you are a Free Moral Agent, you now have some backup. FreeWill is neither a "lie", nor a delusion, it's what makes humans unique among animals : the ability to change the future, and even to alter the course of evolutionary destiny with what we call Culture ; the result of collective free choices.


"The time delay gives us the opportunity to change a thought, to cancel an action --- this gives us, in effect, free won't."
Peter Carter, MD; The Single Simple Question

https://lobsterlagoon.files.wordpress.c ... harris.jpg

[Gnomon]

your lack of scientific literacy — 180 Proof

It's true, that I'm merely an interested layman, not a practicing scientist. But, what you interpret as "lack of scientific literacy" may be simply my tendency to go beyond Reductive dogma to see the Holistic implications of Quantum and Information theories. For example, Einstein was not an empirical technician doing lab experiments. Instead, he was a theoretical philosopher, looking at the big picture, while others were pinning down the details. His radical notion of Relativity forced scientists to view the world from a new perspective.

PS___No, I'm not claiming to be the next Einstein. Other scientists & philosophers are already paving the path to a new information-theoretic worldview. Maybe, your own "literacy" is lacking in that area.

" Albert Einstein's theory of relativity is famous for predicting some really bizarre realities ... he began to consider a notion that was simple but radical."
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/scie ... ing-genius

[Gnomon]

Libet wha- — john27

"Many people believe that evidence for a lack of free will was found when, in the 1980s, scientist Benjamin Libet conducted experiments that seemed to show that the brain “registers” the decision to make movements before a person consciously decides to move."

How a Flawed Experiment “Proved” That Free Will Doesn’t Exist
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... snt-exist/

What's a choice? — john27

You can Google Libet's experimental setup to see how he defined a "choice". But your personal definition may vary. Basically, humans try to change the future by choosing between optional paths into the time-that-has-not-yet-come. But the no-free-will theory says that what you perceive as a choice is actually predestined by your genes and your situation in the world. Libet merely added the notion that your subconscious Brain makes choices automatically, but your conscious Mind takes credit for that fateful selection. If so, your ability to choose between Good & Evil is a delusion. As in Calvinism, you were pre-destined for Heaven or Hell from the very beginning. And there's nothing you can do to change your Fate. :gasp:

" According to Daniel Wegner, for instance, “The experience of willing an act arises from interpreting one’s thought as the cause of the act.” In other words, our sense of making choices or decisions is just an awareness of what the brain has already decided for us".

[Gnomon]

Take issue with ↪180 Proof
, I welcome it, but not the textbook stuff, man. — 180 Proof

I am not a student of any particular branch of Science. So, I don't take issue with the textbooks. I leave that up to professional teachers and book editors. Science textbooks must be constantly updated, as the older doctrines are replaced by new understandings. The textbooks that you take as gospel truth, may already be obsolete, since scientific understanding is evolving at a rapid pace.

Surely, you are aware that Quantum Theory and Information Theory have completely flipped the script from only a century ago. Besides, the issues we are discussing in this thread are not scientific in nature, but philosophical. It's not about absolute "facts", but personal opinions about those facts. You take issue with my interpretation of the evidence, and I take issue with your dogmatic attitude. But hey, if we didn't have differing opinions, this forum would have no reason for being. :joke:

In many sciences, the textbooks are often outdated by the time they are printed,
https://thejetstreamjournal.com/24904/n ... formation/

Yes, the one absolute truth in science is there are no absolute truths in science.
https://www.quora.com/Are-there-absolut ... in-science

[Gnomon]

us" is still the subconscious brain will analysis going on just like always. — PoeticUniverse

So, the conscious Mind has no role in human behavior? Materialists seem to believe that awareness of what we are doing is superfluous. Single cell organisms seem to go about their business without any self-awareness : merely action & reaction. Are you no more sentient than an amoeba?

Philosophers have proposed that human consciousness allows us to produce holistic concepts -- generalities, universals, categories -- that don't exist in the physical world. We can't see a category in the real world, but we can conceive it in our imaginary ideal world of the Mind.

Sure, the physical brain is still the mechanism that converts physical sensations into mental constructs, but the Mind/Brain system, as a whole, is what gives humanity a leg-up on the competition from less integrated organisms. The Mind is not a physical thing, it's the holistic function of a hunk of meat.

A Role For Consciousness :
"Consciousness enables an organism to respond to circumstances grasped as wholes, . . ."
https://philosophynow.org/issues/65/A_R ... sciousness


What is a Function?
A function relates an input to an output. ... It is like a machine that has an input and an output. And the output is related somehow to the input.
https://www.mathsisfun.com/sets/function.html
Note -- the function is not the machine, but what it does, the processed output. For a brain, the output is not a physical substance, but a menta-physical concept, an idea, an ideal.

PS___Holism is the difference between a semantic Forest and a bunch of trees. The concept is not the referent. The subjective symbol is not the objective object.

[Gnomon]

It's probably a focus short cut that other subconscious areas can use for reference to what's going on. — PoeticUniverse

Yes, the function of the Mind is to focus the body/brain onto aspects of the world that are relevant and important to the Self. What we know as "The Self", with its selfish Will, is not a separate thing from the body. Instead, it is a mental image of the integrated (Holistic) functioning of all parts of the body, including brain matter and the circulatory system. However, since most of us have difficulty imagining abstract concepts, we tend to create symbolic metaphors to represent the notion of "Self". And one way to imagine the invisible Menta-Physical notion of Self, is as a ghostly outline of the Physical body. Unfortunately, some people tend to reify that mental image as an immaterial Spirit-form running around outside the material Body-form. Of course, reified metaphors are OK for the dramatic purposes of Poetry, but not for the pragmatic probes of Science.

Speaking of "focus', I'd like to clarify what I mean by "Holism". 180 proof seems to think it means "anti-science" and "New Age/Eastern-religion", or "primitive mumbo-jumbo". But it's actually a philosophical focus on Whole Systems instead of Individual Parts. In fact, there is whole new field of Western Science called "Systems Theory", based on a holistic approach to complexity. As a non-empirical theoretical wide-angle focus, the Synthetic Systems perspective is contrasted to the analytical Reductionist approach. It doesn't deny the usefulness of dissection into constituent elements. It merely puts those puzzle pieces back together again to discover how the parts work together to generate a Function that the parts are not capable of individually. Synthetic Theorizing is the opposite side of the same coin as Analytical Reasoning.

Since you are open-minded about less familiar aspects of Science and Philosophy, I think you might enjoy reading the book -- Holism and Evolution -- that preceded the religious philosophy of New Ageism, and inspired 20th century scientists to broaden the scope of their microscopes to include the invisible features of Integrated Systems. In my own amateur philosophizing, I don't pretend to be doing reductive science, but merely continuing the ancient philosophical tradition begun by Aristotle in his second volume of Phusis (Nature), commonly called "Metaphysics". Not by dissecting Matter, but by looking into how the Mind categorizes Darwin's "entangled bank" of Nature into synthetic functional Concepts, such as "Species" and "Selves".


Synthesis : 1a : the composition or combination of parts or elements so as to form a whole.

Holism and Evolution :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism_and_Evolution

General Systems Theory :
An attempt to formulate common laws that apply to virtually every scientific field, this conceptual approach has had a profound impact on such widely diverse disciplines as biology, economics, psychology, and demography.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... ems+theory

Holism and FreeWill :
So, for clarity, I will sometimes refer to my personal paradigm of Science as "Systems Theory", in hopes of losing the mystical baggage.

[Gnomon]

if qualia are the highest point of the brain's own invented symbolic language. — PoeticUniverse

That's an interesting notion. The properties that we attribute to physical phenomena are abstractions from our sensory sensations. And those conceptions from perceptions are what we call mental "symbols" representing reality. I'll have to give that equation more thought. Those qualitative symbols may also be what Donald Hoffman calls "icons" that we "interface" with, as-if they were real.


The Case Against Reality -- Why Evolution Hid the Truth From Our Eyes
___Donald Hoffman, Cognitive Psychologist
Note -- the forum management has asked me to stop linking to my own blog for further information on the thread topic. and extended definitions of my terminology. But, if you are interested in my information-based review of this book, you can PM me for a private link. It's a non-commercial vanity blog under an anonymous pen name, so the ideas are free, and you won't be censured if you disagree.

[Gnomon]

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. — Gnomon

I just can't leave the ghost of Free Will in peace. Since this is one of the most polarized topics on the forum, I find it one of the most interesting as a philosophical exercise.

In one of the posts above, I mentioned the book that I was currently reading : The Single Simple Question that Challenges All Convictions. I eventually finished reading the book. Then I started a BothAnd Blog post to review it from my personal perspective, which seems similar to the author's. His father was a preacher, and the son of a preacherman. He doesn't specify the particular brand of Christianity he was indoctrinated in. But it probably was not very different from my own. And, like me, he bears no animosity to those who were not dissuaded by doubts.

Raised as a back-to-the-Bible fundamentalist Christian, I took moral freedom for granted. But later I began to ask myself some of the same questions Carter dealt with in the book. Contrary to the title, his layman's philosophical investigation was not limited to a single question. But the central issue for him was Freedom versus Determinism. The cover says : "Connecting the Conundrums of God and Immortality, Free Will, the Strange Reality of Quantum Physics, and Finding Purpose in Existence." So, I merely followed his trail of breadcrumbs through the maze of Metaphysics and Physics.

The book review originally had the same name as this thread : FreeWill and other Popular Delusions. But I decided to add "Unscripted" to qualify FreeWill, in view of my takeaway from the project.The review is only three pages, but the end notes and afterthoughts go on for several more pages. If that's too much to read, you can just look at the pictures.

PS___ Anyone who is sincerely interested in this topic can message me for a link to the book review.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/messages/inbox/gnomon

https://www.amazon.com/Single-Simple-Qu ... 1695354788

↪PoeticUniverse
↪180 Proof
↪Agent Smith
↪Alkis Piskas
↪TheMadFool
↪Metaphysician Undercover
↪Wayfarer

[Gnomon]

I too was indoctrinated with the "Free Will Theodicy" — 180 Proof

I may not have made it clear in the post above, that the author of the book wanted to prove that FreeWill is believable, but after all his reasoning, concluded that humans are slaves to Determinism.

As a young adult, I went through a similar self-analysis of my own "theodicy", and came to basically the same conclusion. But, in my later years, the Enformationism worldview (science-based but information-centric), led me to look at the "facts" from a different perspective. So, my current "theodicy" is a BothAnd complementary compromise between Fatalism and Optimism. I think humanity has just enough freedom & force to nudge the flood of evolution into a rivulet on a course that is more suitable for human purposes. That new direction probably won't take us to heaven, but it may make the journey more enjoyable and purposeful.