Is free-will an illusion?

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Capitalism Works better than communism because it works in Darwinian ways.

Artificial selection (animal breeding, and such) works much better than natural selection. You can get fast, predictable, and intended results with "central planning" by a dictator (stock breeder).

1 Reply

@layman,

Central planning can work too, and much faster than capitalism -- witness the incredible progress made by the USSR over half a century -- but on the long run it loses steam and is also quite risky. All it takes to go off the road is a bad driver at the wheel. One single mistaken decision can kill millions through famine etc.

0 Replies

@MoralPhilosopher23,

The original question was: "Is free-will an illusion? Personally I have a deterministic view and see free-will as incompatible, but I want to know your opinions. If you believe in free-will, then why? If you don't believe in free-will, then why?"

You say that you are a determinist but also that you want to know the opinions of others and their reasons, which seems to imply a free-willed rationality that can evaluate arguments on their merits using self-directed reason.

If everything is determined by deterministic mechanical processes, then so are opinions. Someone else will presumably believe X because of random quantum fluctuations or chemical reactions or whatever ultimately drives the deterministic system; and you will believe Y or X or Z for the same reason, regardless of what is said. Right?

1 Reply

@puzzledperson,

I know you weren't talking to me, but would you mind unpacking this bit for me?:

Quote:

...which seems to imply a free-willed rationality that can evaluate arguments on their merits using self-directed reason.

I don't see why either curiousity or reasoning/rationality would entail free will. I'm not saying it's wrong; I'm just asking for clarification.

1 Reply

@FBM,

If a conclusion is reached solely because of mechanical subatomic processes that by their very nature and definition don't involve thought, then the conclusion has not been reached through reasoning, because it is not the product of thought. To argue that reasoning is possible without thought is to adopt contradictory premises and to fail to grasp the meaning of the term "reason".

Reading the literature of philosophy of mind, there seem to be plenty of writers who believe that computers can reason, simply because an isomorphism has been designed. From there it is a short step to assuming that an abacus can reason, or for that matter, any natural process such as a waterfall which reaches certain "conclusions" (end states) on the basis of "premises" (starting states) and "reasoning" (molecular "calculation" processes powered by gravity and electromagnetic forces) following "algorithms" (built-in natural laws).

2 Replies

@puzzledperson,

puzzledperson wrote:

If a conclusion is reached solely because of mechanical subatomic processes that by their very nature and definition don't involve thought, then the conclusion has not been reached through reasoning, because it is not the product of thought. To argue that reasoning is possible without thought is to adopt contradictory premises and to fail to grasp the meaning of the term "reason".

Reading the literature of philosophy of mind, there seem to be plenty of writers who believe that computers can reason, simply because an isomorphism has been designed. From there it is a short step to assuming that an abacus can reason, or for that matter, any natural process such as a waterfall which reaches certain "conclusions" (end states) on the basis of "premises" (starting states) and "reasoning" (molecular "calculation" processes powered by gravity and electromagnetic forces) following "algorithms" (built-in natural laws).

Quote:

because of mechanical subatomic processes

I'm not sure why we have to go to subatomic. Isn't molecular sufficient at this level? Regardless, if these subatomic/molecular processes are what contribute to/entail the arising of a thought, then it seems that they're not really distinct from the thought, or at least indispensible to the thought process. Like the urn, clabbered milk and churner are all equally indispensible to the cheese-making process. Or is that butter? Anyway, rather than being the product of thought, they could be generators (in part) of thought. This tends towards determinism, but doesn't confirm it.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

You'll have to show me where I wrote that. The argument was directionality; not passiveness.

Briancrc wrote:
I don't know that physiologists generally regard sensory nerves as anything other than passive.

The point I made was directionality. The response regarding passiveness was with respect to sensory nerves. Do physiologists generally regard it differently?

1 Reply

@Briancrc,

Your Point about directionality has been addressed. And yes, physiologists agree that no body part can be described as passive.

0 Replies

@FBM,

The way I see it, either reason is part of this universe, or it's not. If it's part of this universe, it follows that it can cause other things in it, since everything in this universe can influence other things. And if reason can influence things, such as direct our actions for instance, then we got some sort of agency, ie free will.

1 Reply

@puzzledperson,

Quote:

there seem to be plenty of writers who believe that computers can reason

Computers can at the very least compute, which I see as a form of reasoning. So they can reason somewhat, but they don't know it. In fact, they don't even know they exist.

1 Reply

Back in ancient times, Zeno, in order to promote and promulgate Parmenides' view that "all motion is illusion," formulated some very puzzling logical paradoxes which his contemporaries found great difficulty in refuting. Even so, few, if any, came to believe that motion was an illusion.

Centuries later, George Berkeley claimed that objects (in the world) do not exist. He too made some very powerful and persuasive arguments in favor of this proposition. Many conceded that they could not adequately counter his arguments. But once again, they did not cease to believe that objects exist.

When asked how is was possible to refute Berkeley's arguments, Samuel Johnson didn't say a word. Instead he kicked a rock. Then he said: "I refute it thusly."

The arguments asserting that free will is an "illusion" strike me as being in the same vein as those contending that motion and matter are "illusions." Tell me I have no free will and I will voluntarily kick a rock for you.

The propositions are so inherently absurd that no sensible, rational human being will ever "believe" them. If even they profess intellectual loyalty to the proposition that "free will is an illusion," they will still act on the assumption that they have free will in their everyday life.

They will, for example, try to argue that free will is an illusion.

2 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

If even they profess intellectual loyalty to the proposition that "free will is an illusion," they will still act on the assumption that they have free will in their everyday life.

They will, for example, try to argue that free will is an illusion.

Yep...

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

When you copied part of my post, Ollie, did you even notice that some words were out of order? I said "If even" when I intended to say "Even if."

Or did you just kinda automatically read them as though they were in proper order, because that's the only way it would make sense?

1 Reply

@layman,

errr, my English is not good enough for me to correct others. I just assumed it was a smart-ass way to say the same thing.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

I ask because I often do that. I assume others do too. Since I know what they "intend" I don't even notice technical errors which might, if read literally, render their statements incomprehensible.

Needless to say, this make me a very bad "editor," especially of my own statements.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

Since I know what they "intend" I don't even notice technical errors which might, if read literally, render their statements incomprehensible.

I mention that in part for Brian's sake. It's a "gestalt" kinda thing, ya know?

0 Replies

@FBM,

We don't have to go to subatomic, but it's ok to since those molecular processes you refer to ultimately derive from them.

Molecular or subatomic, those processes are not thought and not reasoning. Any conclusions reached solely as a result of mindless mechanical processes haven't been reached through reason. Note the modifier "solely". Reason is a different category of action than "mindless mechanical" and confusing the two is to commit a category error.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Computers don't actually compute: they carry out a set of physical voltage changes that is isomorphic to computing because it has been designed to be.

Look at it this way: if I train a horse to tap its hoof on the floor a certain number of times depending on where I place a limited set of objects on the floor, and the way I design the training causes this to correspond exactly and consistently with a number of taps equal to the number of objects, is the horse counting? That is, is the horse computing the number of objects? No. The intelligence is in the training design which creates the isomorphism.

In the case of a computer, the isomorphism is considerably more complex and elaborated, so it seems much "smarter" than the horse, but it isn't actually intelligent at all, doesn't compute, and doesn't reason.

Similarly, books don't "contain information". A set of ink spots could have an unlimited number of interpretations or none at all, depending on the writer and reader. An author has a particular audience in mind and creates an isomorphism which will have a corresponding meaning for that audience.

A computer programmer together with a computer engineer organizes a system of electromechanical devices to accept input that means something to the user (e.g. a programming language, or English words, or a mouse click on an icon that stands for something) and produces an output that is also meaningful to a user, assuming it works correctly.

1 Reply

@layman,

It's interesting that the proposed solutions to some of Zeno's paradoxes of motion replace it with their own paradoxes, e.g., the concept of an "infinite convergent series". So instead of motion that can never be completed, we have the absurdity of a "completed" infinity! (An "infinity" being that which is open ended and never exhausted.)

I agree that motion exists as a phenomenon, just like rocks do, because I have experienced both. But how to properly interpret and describe something like motion or even position, in a way that stands up to logical scrutiny, is really puzzling to me. I think these things are probably much more vague than commonly supposed, for example, and that insofar as they are really mental events space and time are in some sense illusory. There may also be a reflexive aspect to this (the instrument trying to evaluate itself -- the instrument being the mind) that complicates matters.

It is commonly supposed that every statement has a definite truth value, either true or false. But this only applies to coherent statements, not to gibberish. I furthermore think that there is a disturbingly large class of statements that, while not patently gibberish, are nonetheless incoherent upon acute logical scrutiny. Call them specious: they seem to be talking about something coherently, but close examination reveals contradiction and ill-defined vagueness.

1 Reply

@puzzledperson,

puzzledperson wrote:

Computers don't actually compute: they carry out a set of physical voltage changes that is isomorphic to computing because it has been designed to be.

Yes, good description of computers as sophisticated abacuses (sp?). I like the term isomorphism too.... But if the mind-body problem is to have a natural solution, then we must be sophisticated abacuses too.

Quote:

Similarly, books don't "contain information". A set of ink spots could have an unlimited number of interpretations or none at all, depending on the writer and reader. An author has a particular audience in mind and creates an isomorphism which will have a corresponding meaning for that audience.

That streching it. Books are only paper and ink but texts exist objectively, placed at the midpoint if you will between thoughts and ink. A text is any written series of words and ponctuation signs that have some acceptable degree of grammatical coherence. The text exists as soon as anyone writes it, the same text can be written on different media: paper, metal, stone, computer. It disappears when the last copy is destroyed.

("My camel is pink" is a text. It has a meaning that can be infered from the words, even if absurd or impossible. But "pink me camel!" is barely any text at all according to my definition, perhaps too restrictive)

1 Reply

Is free-will an illusion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know