Proof of nonexistence of free will

@fresco,

Quote:

That is "choice" and "desire" are no longer meaningful at the level of Self, such being ephemeral appendages of the "self" left behind.

Why should it be meaningful to talk about free will at the level of Self then?

1 Reply

@litewave,

It is meaningful only in as much that normal concept of it has been transcended.

An analogy might be to consider the normal concept of "gravity" as a "force of attraction". This is what our everyday experience uses in its transactions with a world of objects. However, if we move to relativistic concepts of "curved space" or quantum concepts of "force as an exchange of particles" our former notion of what "gravity" is, breaks down. i.e. we have widened the domain of explanation to encompasses non common phenomena.(Note also another example that the utilitarian concept of the sun circling the earth is one favoured over the astronomical one for practical purposes)

So too with the concept of "free will" which is a cornerstone of normal relationships between self and others, or self and its world. For esotericists, such relationships are deemed limited, and anything from trivial to illusory. Esoterically speaking, the World of Self is different from the world of self.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

It is meaningful only in as much that normal concept of it has been transcended.

However, if the normal concept of free will loses all meaning upon transcendence, since notions like choice, desire or intention lose meaning as well, it doesn't seem to offer a broader explanation of free will but no explanation at all. In any case, if you suggest that there is a broader explanation of free will then provide it, otherwise it's just an empty suggestion.

2 Replies

@litewave,

litewave wrote:

It seems that this is the definition of free will held by most people, not just me. They believe they are in control of their actions.

Most people don't think overly hard about why they do what they do.

fresco wrote:

but in any case we are still left with the point that traditional logic (and "causality")also do not "work" in many areas of sub-atomic physics

I hadn't noticed you talking about quantum physics before. That stuff is perplexing, but it does have seem to have it's own unique set of logic rules - rule that don't apply at the atomic level up.

spendius wrote:

There can be no free will for an atheist. End of story.

I saw you saying this before. I had not thought you could possibly be serious - It appears to rely on the line of thought that 'because this person (or group of people) thought of it first, no one else can come to believe in the idea'

2 Replies

@litewave,

You keep missing the basic point. What constitutes "explanation" is relative to the domain of usage. In the domain in which "free will" is used its "explanation" lies within the semantic network involving kindred concepts such as "responsibility", "culpability" and "choice" . Reductionist levels of "explanation" involving physico-chemical determinism are as inappropriate to "free will" as they are to adequately describe "a dog begging" because the social element is missing.

The mistake you are making is confuse the two domains of answers to questions such as "why did the light turn red". At the social level the answer is "to regulate the traffic". At the physical (deterministic) level, the answer involves "knowledge of electrical systems theory". But the second mode ignores the social functionality of the device yet this is the domain to which you want to ascribe the label "satisfactory" to "explanations of free will".

Unless you can recognize this fundamental point you will continue to wander in circles.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

The fact that "observation" is similarly problematic at the sub-atomic level (Heisenberg) in physics, and at the interpersonal level ( The Personal Equation) in psychology, suggests that similar non-conventional "logic" might be employed.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Quote:

spendius wrote:

There can be no free will for an atheist. End of story.

I saw you saying this before. I had not thought you could possibly be serious - It appears to rely on the line of thought that 'because this person (or group of people) thought of it first, no one else can come to believe in the idea'

Oh no. It relies on the idea that no other explanation is possible. The materialist is committed to it.

I ought to have made it clear that the atheist not only must think that but also consider anyone who thinks otherwise deluded. fresco is trying to burn the candle at both ends by the traditional method of weaving the winds into a tapestry of self worship.

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

The fact that "observation" is similarly problematic at the sub-atomic level (Heisenberg) in physics, and at the interpersonal level ( The Personal Equation) in psychology, suggests that similar non-conventional "logic" might be employed.

I would have said that non-conventional logic must be applied at the interpersonal level...but I wouldn't have necessarily used quantum physics vs physics as analogy for doing so - physics at the quantum level would almost have to have a conscience to make that analogy work...although considering photons don't like to be oberved...

spendius wrote:

Oh no. It relies on the idea that no other explanation is possible. The materialist is committed to it.

Just to clarify, by aethiest, you mean anyone that doesn't believe that 'spirit' is necessary to the existance of life? Or anyone that doesn't believe in a 'God' in some form?...thereby rendering an aethiest one who believes only in the mechanical exchange of atoms/electrons?

Quote:

I ought to have made it clear that the atheist not only must think that but also consider anyone who thinks otherwise deluded. fresco is trying to burn the candle at both ends by the traditional method of weaving the winds into a tapestry of self worship.

It could be that he realises that quantum physics likely has implications to life and consciousness itself - though (and I haven't read anything on quantum physics for a few years) that has yet to be explored I think.

2 Replies

@vikorr,

Quote:

Just to clarify, by aethiest, you mean anyone that doesn't believe that 'spirit' is necessary to the existance of life? Or anyone that doesn't believe in a 'God' in some form?...thereby rendering an aethiest one who believes only in the mechanical exchange of atoms/electrons?

It's close enough. "Spirit" or "soul" is not only not necessary--it is daft.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

You keep missing the basic point. What constitutes "explanation" is relative to the domain of usage. In the domain in which "free will" is used its "explanation" lies within the semantic network involving kindred concepts such as "responsibility", "culpability" and "choice" .

You seem to be missing the point that what you regard as an "explanation" is just a false assertion. A few centuries ago it was still believed by many that the so-called witches were responsible for various problems in people's lives, so that was how these problems were "explained". It's easy to concoct a concept that purportedly explains something, whether it's a god, a witch, or free will.

2 Replies

@vikorr,

Quote:

It could be that he realises that quantum physics likely has implications to life and consciousness itself - though (and I haven't read anything on quantum physics for a few years) that has yet to be explored I think.

Quantum physics just seems to be a combination of determinism and indeterminism, neither of which gives us free will.

0 Replies

@litewave,

Litewave,

I realise you are correct! YOU indeed have no "free will" ! Wink

1 Reply

@fresco,

Now just realize that you don't have it either. Wink

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

It's close enough. "Spirit" or "soul" is not only not necessary--it is daft.

Thanks for the clarification of your thoughts. Btw, 'spirit' is commonly referred to by everyone, regardless of religion of lack thereof. I daresay you've used it countless times yourself, and accept its everyday use.

0 Replies

@litewave,

litewave wrote:

Quote:
You keep missing the basic point. What constitutes "explanation" is relative to the domain of usage. In the domain in which "free will" is used its "explanation" lies within the semantic network involving kindred concepts such as "responsibility", "culpability" and "choice" .

You seem to be missing the point that what you regard as an "explanation" is just a false assertion. A few centuries ago it was still believed by many that the so-called witches were responsible for various problems in people's lives, so that was how these problems were "explained". It's easy to concoct a concept that purportedly explains something, whether it's a god, a witch, or free will.

Strangely enough, both of you have a point.

Fresco is correct that a discussion of free will is largely meaningless outside the context of ethics, since it really doesn't matter if people are free or determined unless it has some bearing on their culpability for their own acts. Litewave's apparent ignorance of this point is, to say the least, surprising.

On the other hand, litewave is right in suggesting that, in the end, everything is just another "domain of usage" (in fresco's terms) or an episteme (to quote Foucault) or whatever, and that one can fit the domain to suit the explanation. After all, fresco's demand to see everything through the lens of a particular semantic network is just the product of another semantic network.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

After all, fresco's demand to see everything through the lens of a particular semantic network is just the product of another semantic network.

Perhaps not quite. As in the case of "the observation of observation", the "meaning of meaning" involves secondary orders of analysis which go beyond the "just another product" stage. (Analogy: game theory versus particular games).

1 Reply

@fresco,

Don't feel too bad. Foucault couldn't explain his way out of that paradox either.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

I don't see the paradox. As a physicist, I have no logical problem with the fact that the same phenomenon can look one way in one frame of reference and another way in another frame of reference. As long as you can consistently translate between the frames of reference, there is no paradox.

Why need free will be any more paradox than that? Alice makes a decision, observes her decision-making from inside her own consciousness, and sees a non-deterministic exercise of her own free will. Meanwhile, Bob looks at a time-resolved scan of Alice's brain, observes the same decision from outside of Alice's consciousness, and sees a bunch of more or less deterministic electrical signals running through it.

This needn't be a contradiction. To Bob, what's free will to Alice is a particular set of neurons, firing a particular pattern of electric signals through a particular set of synapses. To Bob, what's undetermined to Alice may well be exclusively determined by causes intrinsic to the particular signal patterns making up Alice's will. As long as one can consistently translate between Alice's inner and Bob's outer perspective on Alice's decision, what's the problem? And I don't see why one couldn't, given enough progress in neurophysiology.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

I don't see the paradox. As a physicist, I have no logical problem with the fact that the same phenomenon can look one way in one frame of reference and another way in another frame of reference. As long as you can consistently translate between the frames of reference, there is no paradox.

That's not the paradox.

Thomas wrote:

Why need free will be any more paradox than that? Alice makes a decision, observes her decision-making from inside her own consciousness, and sees a non-deterministic exercise of her own free will. Meanwhile, Bob looks at a time-resolved scan of Alice's brain, observes the same decision from outside of Alice's consciousness, and sees a bunch of more or less deterministic electrical signals running through it.

That's not the paradox either. That's just a point-of-view problem. Although I'd just add that Bob is clearly wrong if he is confusing the signals that cause a thought with the thought itself. That's the path that leads to the sentient corpse.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

That's not the paradox.

What, if anything, is the paradox?

joefromchicago wrote:

I'd just add that Bob is clearly wrong if he is confusing the signals that cause a thought with the thought itself. That's the path that leads to the sentient corpse.

Bryan Garner, my guru on legal writing, has taught me to be especially suspicious whenever a lawyer uses the word "clearly". If the case really was clear, Garner explains, any good lawyer would just let the facts speak for themselves. He wouldn't assert that a case was clear unless it actually wasn't.

With Garner's warning in mind, I find that your thinking-corpse "paradox" is not a paradox. It's a rare instance of question-begging on your part, in that your thought experiment assumes the paradox it alleges to reveal. On the one hand, you assume that the brain in question is dead. On the other hand, you assume the brain can be made to think again"much as, I imagine, a heart can be made to beat again with the help of a pacemaker.

Tbese assumptions are inconsistent under the canonical definition of brain-death, which requires the irreversible loss of all brain fuction. A brain that can think with the help of a brain pacemaker is alive; a brain that is so damaged it's genuinely dead can no longer work, even with a pacemaker. Either way, to freely misquote Woody Allen, my other guru: "your paradox is all wrong. How they pay you to teach anything is beyond me." OK, maybe not that last part. But you get the idea.

3 Replies

Proof of nonexistence of free will

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know