Consciousness and the butterfly effect

It is conceivable. I just don't think we know enough yet about the functioning of the brain to rule out the possibility.
In my view the combination of QM uncertainty at the smallest level may actually be magnified through the application of the butterfly effect right into the realm of the macroscopic.
Whether that is fatal to our concept of free will I am not sure. I have come to the conclusion that I am unable to disprove free will in a QM universe.

Why can't you disprove free will?

The thing about causality is that you'd like to think you could untangle it far enough to get yourself out of it and discover free will. But this is difficult.

I'd be hard pressed to deny that an unbroken chain of prior events is what has caused me to be here, now, in front of this computer in this house on this street in this state in this country, etc. etc.

But those chains of events do not cause me to sit here and read/reply to this thread.

So if causality definitely determines the context of the situation, does it necessarily determine the action/result therein?

My interest in philosophy is what drove me to this forum and therefore this thread in the first place. My current interest in philosophy manifests itself from a culmination of all I've heard/seen since I was born; everything about the way I think has been informed by empirical happenstance. I would not be acting in the way I am if a chain of events had not informed my worldview in the way it has. Even if one is to assume a prioria
knowledge exists, it does not seem possible to me that the a priori knowledge could separate itself from being colored by empirical data.

So while I have the immediate illusion of a choice to type the later "a," that choice itself was brought on by a chain of events, and my reaction to that choice is further informed by a separate but related chain of events. It follows, then, that no event is independent from causality. Therefore, in order for reality to have arrived where it has, every action must have contributed to this composite reality in some lateral way.

Might this be a case it be more useful to accept the "illusion of free will"? Even within the scope of determinism, the fact that you are presented with what you perceive to be choices, and that you act on those choices of what you perceive as your own volition, does not this make free will as good as real? Is reality not entirely subjective perception?

A puppet thinking he has free will while the ventriloquist has simply programmed him to think that is quite different from "real" free will, simply because elimination of free will eliminates subjective perception, does it not?

Anyway, here's another interesting point:
The only reason why you think causality even exists is through inductive logic. So, you can never know it exists with 100% certainty.

So, we know consciousness exists, but we don't, and can't, know if causality exists. Maybe this implies that they're distinct?

... inductive logic cannot prove the existence of causality - just because you could not refute causality in every trial up to now there is always the remote possibility that the next trial will refute causality ... cannot the same be said for consciousness? ... so if you can be "certain" that consciousness exists, then you can also be certain that causality exists, because the certainty attributed to both arises from something other than inductive logic.

As for consciousness and the butterfly effect, visually imagine for a moment the fluid weather patterns weaving around the globe as the butterfly flaps its wing and this cascades through the chaos into a giant storm on some other part of the planet ... now recast the motions of this visual image to the fluid neuronal patterns weaving around the brain as a subconscious stimulus momentarily flutters and this cascades through the chaos into a mind-blowing idea in the frontal lobes.

Consciousness cannot be refuted, because it is an aspect of oneself. If it was false, there cannot be a then. I would cease to exist, because there can no longer be an "I". I must be conscious, by definition of what it means to be conscious. Cogito, ergo cogito.

Causality, however, may be just an aspect of the outside world. I do not know it must be an aspect of me, since the only thing I can know about myself is that I think- that I am conscious. This does not mean I am obeying causality.

As for consciousness and the butterfly effect, I agree, although I don't want to. :sarcastic:

Anyway, The reason why I brought up causality is because the butterfly effect is just a new way of saying "small changes + causality applied to complex systems". So, if causality has no influence on consciousness, then I may be wrong after all! Woohoo! I still have free will!

BTW, note that I said "If I think, then I'm conscious." Isn't this causality? Well, consciousness is defined as thinking, so I really just said "If I'm conscious, then I'm conscious", aka "if a then a", which has nothing to do with the truth-value of a. A is known to be true because I can know. So, I can still be conscious without requiring causality.

... but what causes thought? ...

That is the ultimate question...

All I'm saying is it is possible that it exists without causality. So, is it distinct or not? If it is distinct, then maybe it is (or must be) un-causable. Lord berkeley would have loved this... According to him, nothing exists except for consciousnesses and qualia. According to him, it is inconceivable for an object to exist with no qualia. So, if consciousness doesn't require causality, maybe he's right- there is nothing except for minds.

Or maybe solipsism .

... I've been reading too much James to think that there's nothing except for minds ...

Ya, it's unsettling. We're wisps of consciousness floating in the void.

Can this "true" reality, where there is nothing but consciousnesses, even exist if there is no consciousness to observe them? Or, do the consciousnesses observe themselves, since they are nothing but a consciousness? If you're conscious, then to observe yourself all you need to do is be conscious and know that you are conscious. So, in a way we all already have "seen" this void of true existence- not with eyes, but with knowing this one fundamental, undeniable truth.

But there's a problem:
What happens when a consciousness dies, and thereby stops observing itself? Does it cease to exist, becoming part of that infinite void?

... my own thought on this is that to require an observer for anything to exist is a non-starter ... following the unfolding of our universe from the (latest) big bang until now, there's nothing to indicate a need for anything but natural (un-observed) processes to explain us ... I find this fascinating, beautiful, and hopeful ... from a dark lumpy void, stars erupt out of complete starlessness; from the energetic radiance of bazillions of stars, life erupts out of complete lifelessness; from an animated mass of thriving life, consciousness erupts out of complete consciouslessness ... what's next??!!

Well, does it even make sense to assign existence to something that can never be observed?

For example, I could posit the existence of pickles 10x smaller than the smallest possible observable unit of space- planck length. They can never be observed, so they can never be proven or disproven. They simply become meaningless, because they may or may not exist- we will never know, and it will have no effect on us.

... I think a universe without humans is still a universe ... ours was before the first pulsars formed ... it was before the first galaxies formed ... it was before our solar system formed ... it will continue to be after we as a race are long gone ... the only existence that human "observation" brings to the table is the existence of ideas like pickles 10x smaller than the smallest possible observable unit of space ...

How do you know any of this?
How do you know the universe existed before you did, and will continue to exist after you die?

Can you know anything, aside from "I am conscious"?

... can you really know even that? ... anyhoo, like I said I've been reading too much James ... a veritable inversion of Descartes ... trust experience by default - only doubt it when given good reason ...

Edit:

Actually, you're right. You can't really know anything, at all, with 100% certainty, can you?

Because of the following.
Let's assume you have a sequence of quantum events. It looks like they are random, and they are.
Now let us repeat the same sequence of events, say a thousand times. We keep only that sequence we like best.
Now, if you are part of the material world and you observe said sequence of quantum events would you ever be able to detect if a certain sequence has been pre(or post) chosen for you? Because such a choice would by definition never be detectable by any means at our disposal.

From a slightly different perspective:

An interpretation of quantum reality is the many worlds hypothesis. If your position in time is before the quantum event it is unpredictable for you. If you position in time is behind it you already know which choice your particular world has made.
Remember that if you were a massless particle you would travel forward in time at an infinite rate of speed reach the 'end of time' in no time at all. From that perspective their is not difference between past, present and future and quantum uncertainty is more or less made irrelevant.

i realy liked that...thanks..I have wrestled with fate and its consequences ever since i had dream that told me the lottery numbers...i did not winbecause i did not believe i had till it was to late...i always believed that my free will would stop the idea of the future being written or predicted but ive had to come to terms with the possibilty it might just be..