Proof of nonexistence of free will

@guigus,

I am not trying to solve it.

As I see it, reality is a continuous negotiation between all phenomena within it that exert some force on it's further progression.
At least, this is how it appears to us if we remove the idea of self from the equation. Our choice is merely our experience of being such a phenomena within reality, that exerts some force on it's further progression.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

I am not trying to solve it.

Back to nonsense...

Cyracuz wrote:

As I see it, reality is a continuous negotiation between all phenomena within it that exert some force on it's further progression.

Back to materialism...

Cyracuz wrote:

At least, this is how it appears to us if we remove the idea of self from the equation.

You mean to remove the remover?

Cyracuz wrote:

Our choice is merely our experience of being such a phenomena within reality, that exerts some force on it's further progression.

This is just old rotted materialism, the same that killed historical materialism by changing it into DIAMAT -- no news there. This is just self-alienation: you are trying to see yourself as if you were someone else -- worse, something else. Which is the best way of missing it all. As Sartre already put it, you are just forgetting the one who is conceiving of this material world in which you are just an object among objects: yourself. This is the old scientific dream of an observer independent of reality, which even in science does not stand anymore since quantum physics -- every time you try to assume an absolute point of view and see the world with yourself reduced to an object among objects outside of yourself, you:

1. Create a false world, which is just a product of your imagination, a world biased towards your own interests and desires.

2. You loose your only opportunity of really understanding the world, by understanding your own relation to it.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

So far I noticed you oscillate between the materialistic view and a proper view that you beautifully put a few posts ago. You are seeking a panoramic view of the world, but you cannot achieve it in a proper way, so you fall back into materialism. There is indeed such a panoramic view, but you must go forward, not backward into an already failed philosophical project.

0 Replies

@guigus,

Quote:

Back to nonsense...

Back to condescending insults?

Quote:

You mean to remove the remover?

No. I mean remove the assumption that self is an entity separate from everything else.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
Back to nonsense...

Back to condescending insults?

This is no insult, since it does not refer to you: it refers to what you are saying, which is, unfortunately, nonsense, since you are obviously trying to solve the problem of free will, which consists in determining if we are indeed free to decide or not.

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
You mean to remove the remover?

No. I mean remove the assumption that self is an entity separate from everything else.

If you mean, by an "entity separate," an object, then you are just saying what I said: that you are not an object among objects. However, the fundamental fact is that, no matter what you do, you remain different from whatever you observe and eventually think about, and that difference is the very condition of your observing and eventually thinking about anything in the first place. Whenever you observe an object, you yourself is not an object, but an observer, which is a fundamentally different "entity" -- a abstract one. Of course you can consider that observer as also an object, but then he/she ceases to be an observer and becomes an object of your observation. So you cannot "remove" subjectivity from the equation, since that very equation vanishes without it. The dream of all materialists is a world without us, where we appear as an epiphenomenon: what they forget is that such a world can only exist because they are dreaming of it in the first place: whenever you try to "remove" subjectivity from the equation, you eventually realize you are just relocating it.

2 Replies

@guigus,

guigus wrote:

...trying to solve the problem of free will, which consists in determining if we are indeed free to decide or not.

Like I said, I am not trying. It isn't a very complicated issue. Sometimes we are free to decide, and sometimes we are not.
And given the nature of our perception and of consciousness, I do not think we can find any permanent relations between choice, determinism and indeterminism, as they all no doubt seem reasonable according to the different relationships consciousness establishes as the contents of the experience of reality.

0 Replies

@guigus,

The same can be said the other way around whenever you remove objectivity from the field of observation the subject ceases to exist as nothing is to be distinguishable any more...Subjectivity aims at objectivity as much as Objectivity points up to subjectivity...the relation its intrinsically dual...nevertheless is worth mention that recently I saw a video from an expert in String Theory were Observation was described as something being affected by something else without recurring to the more common narrower everyday sense of a subject or a mind observing as conscience ...awareness at this light is presented in successive degrees or progressive layers as a Universal trait of functional relation in Nature without recurring to any particular entity with special property´s like the one´s we use to attribute to mind in our vain Anthropic compulsion...a scenario that very much goes according to my view which already in a recent past originated some heated debates here in the forum given some people around are very found of a classical perspective upon the meaning of observation...

Is my belief that the inter-dependency of objects through functions and functions as objects of relation, neither diminishes the object nor ads to the function beyond its a priori potential to make peril any sense of Truth as the measure of what is to be Real out there...

2 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

guigus wrote:
...trying to solve the problem of free will, which consists in determining if we are indeed free to decide or not.

Like I said, I am not trying. It isn't a very complicated issue. Sometimes we are free to decide, and sometimes we are not.
And given the nature of our perception and of consciousness, I do not think we can find any permanent relations between choice, determinism and indeterminism, as they all no doubt seem reasonable according to the different relationships consciousness establishes as the contents of the experience of reality.

A certainly permanent relation between choice, determination, and indetermination, is that choice depends on both determination and indetermination. As for determinism (against indetermination) or indeterminism (against determination), they are both wrong.

1 Reply

@guigus,

I think we must distinguish between "indetermination" which is a lack of resolve and "indeterminism", which is pretty much a void concept as far as I can tell. It seems to me that neither hold much relevance here.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

The same can be said the other way around whenever you remove objectivity from the field of observation the subject ceases to exist as nothing is to be distinguishable any more...Subjectivity aims at objectivity as much as Objectivity points up to subjectivity...the relation its intrinsically dual...

That's also my view.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

nevertheless is worth mention that recently I saw a video from an expert in String Theory were Observation was described as something being affected by something else without recurring to the more common narrower everyday sense of a subject or a mind observing as conscience ...

This "broader" view is just the old narrower, materialistic view with fancy clothes. There is no way of putting subjectivity out of the equation, and subjectivity cannot be conceived as an object of any kind, be it a brain or a brane.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

awareness at this light is presented in successive degrees or progressive layers as a Universal trait of functional relation in Nature without recurring to any particular entity with special property´s like the one´s we use to attribute to mind in our vain Anthropic compulsion...

You are just trying to free yourself from materialism: subjectivity needs no recurrence "to any particular entity with special properties," which is just conceiving it as an object, which it is not. You don't need String theory to do that, and String theory won't do it for you, anyway: it will just replace an objectification of subjectivity for another.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

a scenario that very much goes according to my view which already in a recent past originated some heated debates here in the forum given some people around are very found of a classical perspective upon the meaning of observation...

Including String theorists -- don't fool yourself: String theory is a classical theory, it tries to remove the indeterminacy introduced by quantum physics and restore a classical world.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Is my belief that the inter-dependency of objects through functions and functions as objects of relation, neither diminishes the object nor ads to the function beyond its a priori potential to make peril any sense of Truth as the measure of what is to be Real out there...

You will never be able to reduce subjectivity to objectivity, no matter how fancy is your strategy. Neither you will ever be able to do the opposite. Just as you said in the beginning.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

I think we must distinguish between "indetermination" which is a lack of resolve and "indeterminism", which is pretty much a void concept as far as I can tell. It seems to me that neither hold much relevance here.

That's what I just did. Indetermination is the lack of determinacy, while determination is its presence. Determinism is dismissing indetermination as false in favor of determination, while indeterminism is dismissing determination as false in favor of indetermination. But sometimes we use "determinism" and "indeterminism" to (imprecisely) mean determination and indetermination, respectively, you just have to mind the context.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

I saw a video from an expert in String Theory were Observation was described as something being affected by something else without recurring to the more common narrower everyday sense of a subject or a mind observing as conscience

You are moving into the realm of thought I am residing in these days.

The "something" being quantum waves of possibility. They are not physical. Yet they can react to eachother, and as they do, they will dictate eachother's behaviour.
I think of the instance they interact as observation, and at that instance there is a flash of consciousness.

When we look at it like this, it seems that conscious moments happen all the time everywhere. It doesn't require a brain. Perhaps the only thing the brain really does is to record conscious moments and string them together in a coherent reality?
I am not suggesting this as fact. I am merely saying that these are considerations that challenge basic assumptions, not basic facts.

Btw, Fil, I've been noticing a steady improvement in your english. Smile

3 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

Btw, Fil, I've been noticing a steady improvement in your english.

I just have to take a little bit more time to reply...still, I have a long way to go.
Anyway thanks for your support ! Wink

See you around Cyr !

0 Replies

@litewave,

Freewill is the ability to choose your actions. I can choose to write this post or not. Just because I do does not mean I am forced to. By choosing I exert my freewill.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
I saw a video from an expert in String Theory were Observation was described as something being affected by something else without recurring to the more common narrower everyday sense of a subject or a mind observing as conscience

You are moving into the realm of thought I am residing in these days.

Which is called materialism...

Cyracuz wrote:

The "something" being quantum waves of possibility. They are not physical. Yet they can react to eachother, and as they do, they will dictate eachother's behaviour.

When you talk about "influence," "interference," or even "reaction," you are talking about something physical, which always involves locality -- that's the very difficulty of thinking about the wave function, and of really understanding it: you must really think of something not physical. Regarding the wave function, wave interference is completely different from, say, sound waves interference: they share only their mathematical description.

There are plenty of ways in which you can try to see subjectivity as objective, some very subtle, some not at all. But in the end they are essentially the same.

Cyracuz wrote:

I think of the instance they interact as observation, and at that instance there is a flash of consciousness.

Wave functions do not "interact": they interfere, but not physically, since they have no physical existence. Their interference is a metaphor, it means they behave as if they were interfering with each other, or -- which is the same -- as if they were waves.

Cyracuz wrote:

When we look at it like this, it seems that conscious moments happen all the time everywhere.

They do: they are your conscious moments, which are with you all the time you are awake, everywhere you go during this time.

Cyracuz wrote:

It doesn't require a brain. Perhaps the only thing the brain really does is to record conscious moments and string them together in a coherent reality?

The brain is the objective reality on which our consciousness depends, certainly -- don't doubt it. The "consciousness" you may find outside of it will most certainly disappoint you.

Cyracuz wrote:

I am not suggesting this as fact. I am merely saying that these are considerations that challenge basic assumptions, not basic facts.

What you call "considerations," I would call (false) assumptions, and what you call "assumptions," I would call (basic) facts.

0 Replies

@quirkology,

quirkology wrote:

Freewill is the ability to choose your actions. I can choose to write this post or not. Just because I do does not mean I am forced to. By choosing I exert my freewill.

As I exert mine by answering to you, to say I totally agree.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

The "something" being quantum waves of possibility. They are not physical. Yet they can react to eachother, and as they do, they will dictate eachother's behavior.

Quantum waves do not "behave" (or misbehave): they are "waves of possibility," whatever that means. They are nothing other than the probabilities behind the statistical distribution of events -- the only behavior a wave function has is its mathematical behavior, which is of course a metaphor. A wave function is an immaterial, an abstract, and a non-physical being: just like a number, or a set. To say that wave functions "dictate" each other's "behavior" is the same as to say that a division between two numbers "dictates" the "behavior" of its quotient.

1 Reply

In the last century, Bell's theorem went beyond quantum physics to set a standard for any particular physical theory. Now it happened again:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/11/entangled-uncertainty/

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/jono/uncertainty-nonlocality.html

0 Replies

@guigus,

It is obvious that our language was designed to communicate macro-cosmic "real" events. When we transfer this language to something abstract, it is bound to be imprecise.

But I would very much like to see these facts you rely on to call my considerations false assumptions.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

It is obvious that our language was designed to communicate macro-cosmic "real" events. When we transfer this language to something abstract, it is bound to be imprecise.

Our language was never "designed," just as much as life was not. And abstractions make our language more precise rather than the opposite (just take mathematics for an example), because it allows us focusing narrower aspects of reality, thus isolating them. Most or our language today refers to abstractions -- in science, in economics, in computer science. Most of us refer everyday to directories, windows, megabytes of data, megabits per second of data-transfer rates, wireless connections, the Internet, which are all abstractions (you are in an Internet forum, for God sake, you are not a medieval servant), and all feeling as familiar as a human face. You must be kidding, we are in a civilization built upon abstractions, including our laws, human rights, and so on -- all abstract. If you kill someone, hence committing a felony, then you will see how precise that abstraction is.

Cyracuz wrote:

But I would very much like to see these facts you rely on to call my considerations false assumptions.

Your assumption that subjectivity can be reduced to objectivity ignores the basic fact that such objectivity requires you as a subject so as to conceive of it in the first place.

1 Reply

Proof of nonexistence of free will

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know