What is freewill?

Hello Fresco,

Quote:

The words "purpose" and "me" here say it all !

Quite...see above Smile

By the way...I could easily rephrase that to say "there is no practical purpose to the survival of the human race in this debate at all", but seeing as I like relating things back to me, and not insulting other people who may think differently...I usually choose (note "I Choose" says it all...and I'm being facetious there) to add in the 'to me'.

As a further nitpick...you do misrepresent me : I said "no purpose" and "me" (yet I am doing), not "purpose' and 'me".

Of course "no purpose" isn't exactly right on my part...for it's to satisfy my curiosity

0 Replies

vikorr,

The epistemological point is that concepts of "purpose", "causality" and "agent" are mutually incestuous. There are alternative epistemologies but much baggage needs to be shed in order to understand them. Whether an individual seeks such "understanding" or not may no longer be a matter of personal preference because the frontier of what we call "science" itself seems to demand such a shift.

If you have time, this reference may illustrate the point.
http://www.fdavidpeat.com/bibliography/essays/nat-cog.htm

0 Replies

Quote:

The epistemological point is that concepts of "purpose", "causality" and "agent" are mutually incestuous.

An interesting choice of wording. "Mutually incestuous" sounds like a made up phrase to describe a concept that is not described here.

Quote:

There are alternative epistemologies but much baggage needs to be shed in order to understand them.

Another phrase "much baggage" once more refers to something that you haven't described (or previously attributed that label to).

Quote:

Whether an individual seeks such "understanding" or not may no longer be a matter of personal preference because the frontier of what we call "science" itself seems to demand such a shift.

If you have time, this reference may illustrate the point.
http://www.fdavidpeat.com/bibliography/essays/nat-cog.htm

The article seems to be talking about quantum entaglement (without ever mentioning that term), and non-locality (which term I suppose, is a feature of how quantum entanglement works). It also argues for the wholeness of systems, which I have no problem with. I don't see any connection though, between quantum entanglement/phsyics, and what we are discussing here.

0 Replies

vikkor,

The article explores the implications of non-locality for "cognition" and "communication" and specifically questions the ontological status of separate "observers" and "communicators".

0 Replies

Free will is what humans have prior to the birth of their offspring.

0 Replies

Yet another philosophy thread hijacked by fresco and JLNobody as they beat their tired hobbyhorse of nondualism.

0 Replies

Quote:

vikkor,

The article explores the implications of non-locality for "cognition" and "communication" and specifically questions the ontological status of separate "observers" and "communicators".

Here's the relevant parts from the article re communication :

Quote:

Communication, I would suggest, is a paradigm case which cries out for a non-local description

Communication or interaction at the quantum level operates as an unified whole, but this wholeness is not confined to quantum phenomena is also an essential characteristic of human communication. In any dialogue between two people the meaning cannot be associated exclusively with either participant, neither does it reside in the worlds that flow between them. Rather this meaning arises out of the whole activity of the discussion.

In this sense meaning could be said to be "non-local", or rather to depend upon an extended context that cannot be localized within either participant.

Ford and I6 have drawn attention to this analogy between human communication and the quantum wholeness of observer and observed.

0 Replies

vikorr.

You have crucially failed to quote the next paragraph.

Quote:

Not only should communication demand an new holistic treatment but it also denies the absolute distinction between message and object. Meaning unfolds within thought, the meaning of a word resonates throughout the body giving rise to thoughts, emotions, feelings, physiological changes, fresh arrangements of the muscles, changes in heart beat and breathing and the disposition to further verbal action. Meaning, therefore, is neither exclusively mental, nor physical, but both. The word is an abstract concept--a sign-- but is also soundwaves, thought and physical activity within the body, it is inseparably all of these things. I would also suggest that this image of the wholeness of communication and the inseparability of the signifier and the signified can be applied metaphorically to the natural world. Communication becomes physical interaction between material objects, and the movement of meaning through society or the human body.

This is effect a plea for "systems theory" in which "selves" have the ontololgical status of "blood cells" subservient to "higher level" organization.

0 Replies

Fresco, do you also feel like we're being stalked?

Joefromchicago: "Yet another philosophy thread hijacked by fresco and JLNobody as they beat their tired hobbyhorse of nondualism."

Frankly, I don't feel that we've hijacked this thread simply by expressing our views. And my "hobbyhorse" is far from tired. Although it IS tiresome to find so few people able to ride it.

0 Replies

Hi JL

Quote:

Frankly, I don't feel that we've hijacked this thread simply by expressing our views.

I'm happy to side with you on this...as you don't believe in "I", then from that perspective, free will can't exist, so the first debate needs to be over the existance of 'I'.

Quote:

And my "hobbyhorse" is far from tired. Although it IS tiresome to find so few people able to ride it.

A small criticism if I may. Both yourself and Fresco have provided very little explain your position on "I". A number of times when you /fresco have attempted to do so, it's been with phrased labels that reference other works. This doesn't actually achieve any explanation of your position, and I have been finding it a little frustrating. This may be one reason why you find 'so few people able to ride it' (or alternatively they may think that the philosophy is nonsensical, or a waste of time, or a combination of both)

0 Replies

Vikorr, thanks for your comments. I'm sure most people do consider our thesis to be a waste of their time. As you've noted, the perspective we advocate has no practical value (I sense a difference here similar to that between "basic" and "applied" science. And as I said earlier most "knowledge" in human history has provided some utility even though it has surpasssed by theoretically "truer" practical "knowledge". As Nietzsche put it, humankind's "intellectual" history may be characterized as a "history of errors."
As I understand Fresco's links, their purpose is to show how anti-dualism and the non-existence of "I" (among other things) require (revolutionary) "paradigm shifts" in our thinking.
I am surprised that Nietzsche was able to realize the delusory status of "I" without use of meditation as an avenue to the necessary shift. Meditation, when successful, enables us to "see" the situation in a manner that transcends the constraints of our cultural logic and its expression in our grammar.

To most people "I think therefore I am" seems self-evident. I see only "Thinking." From my perspective Decartes should have said: "There is thinking that there is an "I" thinking."

My comments have had the intention of enticing others to want to transcend the "I" delusion by means of direct intuition. I cannot achieve this goal by means of "rational" argument which is the reason I hate to engage "opponents" in debate on this subject. It is very difficult to assist people who truly WANT to grasp our perspective; it's impossible with those who only wish to undermine it, as with those who argue (as a last resort) that our position is no different from that of Christian fundamentalism.

0 Replies

vikkorr,

My post which pointed out that "I" was not present at the time of the route choice scenario required no external references only intellectual honesty. The fact that you mistook the later reporting of the scenario for the actual cognitive event demonstates how "common sense" alone is poor equipment at this level of debate.

JLNs points are valid. You claim we have provided "little to explain" our position but that word "little" reflects the failure or resistance on your part to understand or explore the multitude of references to key authors. Your attempts to discredit such references on the grounds that they are "old", or that unlikely claims such as "teleportation" were equally suggested by them is somewhat amateur when discussing the complexities of "consciousness".

Whether you are interested in "our position" merely as a target for rhetorical demolition, or otherwise, you might find something of substance here.

http://consc.net/online.html

I would be pleased to discuss any reference therein which you feel supports your ontological views on "I".

0 Replies

Hi JL

Thanks for your reply. Your previous replies make much more sense in light of what you said.

Hi Fresco,

You did reference some works by mentioning authors etc, which was not an explanationwhich is the point I made. That said, thank you for that link. It appears vast, and I think I will peruse it from time to time.

Quote:

I would be pleased to discuss any reference therein which you feel supports your ontological views on "I".

I find this rather disappointing from a person who obviously puts so much time into philosophy.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

My comments have had the intention of enticing others to want to transcend the "I" delusion by means of direct intuition. I cannot achieve this goal by means of "rational" argument which is the reason I hate to engage "opponents" in debate on this subject. It is very difficult to assist people who truly WANT to grasp our perspective; it's impossible with those who only wish to undermine it, as with those who argue (as a last resort) that our position is no different from that of Christian fundamentalism.

Well, your position differs from Christian fundamentalism in at least one respect: it's far more incomprehensible.

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

I'm happy to side with you on this...as you don't believe in "I", then from that perspective, free will can't exist, so the first debate needs to be over the existance of 'I'.

Nonsense. In any debate over the existence of free will, the existence of the "I" is a given. It does not need to be established, it is assumed. If you feel the need to establish the existence of the "I," then you have no business talking about free will in the first place. Indeed, if the existence of the "I" were not assumed, every philosophical question would necessarily be an ontological question over the existence of the "I" (which, of course, is exactly the position that fresco and JLNobody consistently take in this forum -- but then their position is nonsense too).

0 Replies

Quote:

In any debate over the existence of free will, the existence of the "I" is a given. It does not need to be established, it is assumed.

Correct !

Quote:

Indeed, if the existence of the "I" were not assumed, every philosophical question would necessarily be an ontological question over the existence of the "I"

Garbage !

0 Replies

Quote:

Nonsense. In any debate over the existence of free will, the existence of the "I" is a given. It does not need to be established, it is assumed. If you feel the need to establish the existence of the "I," then you have no business talking about free will in the first place.

Now now, it is only nonsense from your perspective, not from mine, and as this is a purely subjective subject, neither of us can be wrong. I don't feel the need to establish the existence of "I", as you put it. I think I exists...however, as "I" is required for free will, and the only other two posters who were contributing here didn't believe in "I"...it isn't possible to have a discussion on free will with them, without first debating "I".

0 Replies

vikorr,

Yes, "I" as a purposeful agent and "free will" are mutually "existent" (or in my terminology "incestuous"). The so-called "free will debate" beloved of religionists and some in the AI camp is pushed into a parochial backwater when the term "existence" is scutinized as a general function of context. In this respect it important to investigate which contexts evoke an "I" and which do not.

0 Replies

(To expand.....)

"I" is used only in dialogue situations including those of internal dialogue. In as much as "thinking" is in dialogue, agents such as "I" are markers for an originator or receiver of reported action. Thus when "I" report to "myself" that I have just eaten another peanut having one minute previously resolved to close the bag, the report might take the comedic form that "HE (objectivised "I") did it automatically without thinking" because in fact there was in fact no consciousness of "I" at the time of the automatic eating. Does this mean "I had no free will" ? No...because I wasn't present !

By extrapolation much of the action we are involved in requires no "I" because it is not accompanied by dialogue. The concept of "free will" presupposes (a) that such dialogue has taken place and (b) that a conscious decision between alternative actions has been "discussed" prior to action. This really only matters in social questions of "responsibility".
Only an "armchair philosopher" would consider "choosing a tie", say, as a possible scenario for the demonstration of "free will" . In "social reality" the concept is only significant with respect to "responsibility" or transgressions of action norms such as those codified in the law or scripture. In other words "free will" is evoked in social situations where the continuity and coherence of "I" is evoked. Lawyers offering "mitigating circumstances" are in essence engaged in devaluing such continuity and coherence.

0 Replies

What is freewill?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know