Do you believe in free will?

[NoMoreFaith]

So if we can show that the conscious can input back to the subconscious to change our state, then this is a demonstration of free will.

Well it's a description of a mechanism. I don't think there's anything "free" in there (in the sense that a theist would mean at any rate). We don't choose how our brains wire themselves, and we don't choose the external events in the world (they happen whether we like them or not), so there is no room for any sort of freedom in there.

You realise that was kinda my point right?

---

Too much Gish gallop for this fraulein. Bailing in 3... 2... 1..

I'd never heard that phrase before.. noting it down for future reference.

[tackattack]

---

1- Ok. I get now that you see all abstract thoughts as intangible (or not material), part of the causal chain, atemporal, illusory and not real. From your last post this is what I extrapolate. Is this correct? Given this is your position, please define real.

Intangible - yes, though with a definite tangible parallel. Part of causal chain - yes. Atemporal - no. Illusory - no. Not real - no.

2- I believe what we agree on is that they’re intangible yet part of the causal chain. Assuming that let’s go to atemporal. I feel those abstracts discussed (particularly declarative memories) are independent of this current timeline, thus divorced from shared temporal reality. They are effected and degraded by the passage of time, thus they are subject to temporal influence. They can also illicit sensory input while experiencing this shared temporal reality. Do you agree with this. Episodic memories to me is what I’m calling temporal. Semantic memories, which would just be like a factual tablature would be atemporal. If it can effect the shared timeline, regardless of sequence it’s temporal which semantic memories do only after recalled into the conscious mind and filtered into the agent. While by themselves they would be atemporal . Thoughts on my reasoning?

The emphasized statement is incorrect. The content of a memory may be considered atemporal, but the memory itself is not and therefore it is not divorced from shared temporal reality. Further, while the content may be considered independent of passage of time, i.e. it doesn't change with time, it in no way implies that it cannot be a product of temporal reality.

3- To better clarify phenomena and noumena I define math, logic, objective truth, axioms, etc. as noumena and not directly observable from within the bounds of personal perspective. Sensory input (materialistically input) would be phenomena and directly observable and generally objectifiable. I apologize if my definitions are off on this. Apparently I need some brushing up on my Plato and Kant. If they are accurate enough, to which category would you place free will?

So, basically, concepts or abstractions are noumena. Fine. Then I'd place free-will (along with all other philosophy) into the category of noumena.

4- I believe identity does depend on perspective, predominantly because of the mechanisms of recall and introspection. How we perceive we are being perceived affects us. Guys suck in their gut when a hot girl approaches and so forth. The schizo was a valid thought experiment. While 6 people observing a schizo will only see the prevailing personality and identify that as part of the whole, the personality sees the whole as the dominant personality. Consensus of shared reality says that it’s only part of the whole and that’s deemed as real. Perspective (without rationality or external objective cues) of the personality prevents access to that shared reality but doesn’t make that personality agent seem any less real or effective.

The difference between what is deemed to be real and what is real is called the process of perception - a process which can be erroneous. Consider this thought experiment. A normal-sighted and a color-blind person look at the same apple. The former says the apple is red. The latter says the apple is not red. Both are statements about the identity of the apple. If identity is determined by perspective, then the apple is red and not red at the same time. These two are contradictory and mutually exclusive identifications. If both are true at the same time, then the term "truth" loses all meaning.

5-I am saying that coercer and the coerced could be one and the same. While not the exclusive influence people convince themselves they are something they aren’t all the time. Let’s use anorexia as an example. You’ve gone and convinced yourself that you’re fat to the point the string bean in the mirror is visually augmented into that of a chubby buddy. Essentially I’m saying that this person's will is acting against their real sensory output and perhaps even against their own self preservation natural instincts. I believe if we can influence perception enough, it affects the will. That will is part of identity and I believe either externally or internally we can affect the agent with that will. If you want to call it self-medicating or something else fine but that is what I consider coercion.

You don't understand what coercion means, do you? Simply put, coercion requires action against will. Here, the action of manipulating the perception is according to the person's will to consider himself fat. Acting (or believing) against the sensory input does not constitute coercion. Therefore, the consequent changes in the will were according to his will as well. Given this self-consistency, no coercion has taken place.

---

1-OK so we can agree that thoughts are part of a causal chain, real and intangible. Please define what qualifies as real for you.
2- I agree that contents of memories don’t change with time, only our ability to recall them. If you want to consider them temporal because the medium they’re housed in fine. I agree that the physical medium is subject to timeline merely by definition of physical. However I don’t consider sequential order the same as being part of the active timeline. The semantic memories have no time correlation and are a sum of the factual knowledge. They may be gathered sequentially, however they are readily recalled out of sequence for reference and are not attached with a “time stamp” if you will. I agree that episodic memories are much more temporal as are the mediums that both are housed on.
3-glad we could reach a consensus on phenomena and noumena. Guess the question now would be are noumena real to you? To follow that, are they reliable?
4-Some argue just that “the apple is” is declarative of its place in reality, regardless of the perception of said apple. Truth then doesn’t lose all meaning, but describing the objective truth of the apple’s existence is purely subjective. If existence is determined only by perspective, it’s only determined by consensus and that truth is relatively useless, no pun intended. However you have to first establish existence, then description, then filter as much bias as you can to get a useful perspective. Only then can you use logic, reason and recall to effectively use the object. While I agree that perception can be erroneous, that still leaves the question from 1 and 3.
5-I do know what coercion means thank you, but I appreciate your concern. Unfortunately you’re only relegating it to a force against will, which I believe is in error. Coercion is the power to use force to gain compliance. You can, in our examples, use (apply force) coercion (of will) to change the agent (the I) against a subset of that agent being innate physical (or genetic, or learned, or programmed) nature.


@NMF - I'll get to yours tonight I ran out of time, mid sentence. Hold me to it.

[oxymoron]

2- I agree that contents of memories don’t change with time, only our ability to recall them.

This is wrong. Memories are to a large part synthetic - elements are added and removed to the extent that they may content things that were objectively not there, or the erasure of significant things which were.

[genkaus]

1-OK so we can agree that thoughts are part of a causal chain, real and intangible. Please define what qualifies as real for you.

Things which exist and can be perceived either directly or through effect.

2- I agree that contents of memories don’t change with time, only our ability to recall them. If you want to consider them temporal because the medium they’re housed in fine. I agree that the physical medium is subject to timeline merely by definition of physical. However I don’t consider sequential order the same as being part of the active timeline. The semantic memories have no time correlation and are a sum of the factual knowledge. They may be gathered sequentially, however they are readily recalled out of sequence for reference and are not attached with a “time stamp” if you will. I agree that episodic memories are much more temporal as are the mediums that both are housed on.

Read my argument again. I said that the content of the memory may be consider atemporal - but that does not mean they can exist without a temporal reality. While being atemporal in nature, they still are a derivative of the temporal reality.

3-glad we could reach a consensus on phenomena and noumena. Guess the question now would be are noumena real to you? To follow that, are they reliable?

Noumena as defined here - very much so. But reliable - not certainly. The noumena are created by the consciousness as a product of phenomena through the process of abstraction. There may be errors (or deliberate manipulations) in this process which leave it not completely reliable.

4-Some argue just that “the apple is” is declarative of its place in reality, regardless of the perception of said apple. Truth then doesn’t lose all meaning, but describing the objective truth of the apple’s existence is purely subjective. If existence is determined only by perspective, it’s only determined by consensus and that truth is relatively useless, no pun intended. However you have to first establish existence, then description, then filter as much bias as you can to get a useful perspective. Only then can you use logic, reason and recall to effectively use the object. While I agree that perception can be erroneous, that still leaves the question from 1 and 3.

This argument seems more or less correct. Does this mean you have conceded your previously held position that the identity is determined by perspective?

5-I do know what coercion means thank you, but I appreciate your concern. Unfortunately you’re only relegating it to a force against will, which I believe is in error. Coercion is the power to use force to gain compliance. You can, in our examples, use (apply force) coercion (of will) to change the agent (the I) against a subset of that agent being innate physical (or genetic, or learned, or programmed) nature.

Consider the definition you use - "force to gain compliance". Which means, compliance did not exist before. When talking about conscious agents and coercion - the non-compliance comes from its will. Non-compliance due to innate or programmed nature does not come within that purview.

For example, even if you are using physical force to get a child into a bath (and you are doing so in all the actions of picking it up etc.), it is not coercion unless the child doesn't want to take the bath - unless its against its will. With regards to coercion, the existence of contrary wills on both sides of the actions is necessary.

---

This is wrong. Memories are to a large part synthetic - elements are added and removed to the extent that they may content things that were objectively not there, or the erasure of significant things which were.

Tack specified the difference with regards to semantic and episodic memories. For example, you recollection of a principle such as gravitational theory does not change with time.

[tackattack]

---

My statement does need a little rephrasing as it was inaccurate so allow me to re attempt.

This perception of phenomena, effect of noumena, desire, introspection and reasoning, all filtered through identity, and acted upon are what encompass free- will to me.

(emphasis added)

[Not sure which usage you're referring to here; if you are simply using noumena in place of say, 'mental contents', why that usage — what is your specific meaning. I responded to the more contemporary meaning, and since it's already typed, I'll simply leave it in place.]

Noumena do not have effects. If it has effects, it is phenomena. An example straddling the line might be dark energy and dark matter. Currently, afaik, they have not been able to detect such matter or energy directly, presumably because its interactions with ordinary matter are extremely weak (like neutrinos which can travel through an entire planet without collision). However, dark matter and dark energy are hypothesized to exist because, despite our inability to detect it through interaction with normal matter, it has an effect on the overall system via gravity, such that if it didn't exist, something would have to take its place, because there are gravitational sums which don't agree with observation without it. Now noumena would be something that has no effect at all, and is thus not knowable even in principle. An example is the distinction between empirical results, experience, and reality. There could be thousands of universes, all essentially existing in the same 'universe-space', but, because the laws governing the behavior of stuff in one universe don't interact with our normal universe, they are essentially invisible. Such universes would be noumenal, as we couldn't know them by any means, as they don't have effects that can be detected in our 'universe-stuff'.

---

My specific meaning was to not leave any possible influence out. For instance, the subconscious mind can not be knowable to the conscious without becoming conscious viewed and integrated. I hope this clears it up a little. Sorry for the delayed response.

This perception of phenomena, hypothesized noumena, desire, introspection and reasoning, all filtered through identity, and acted upon are what encompass free- will to me.

---

6- So be objective measurability is your factor for what’s real? If thoughts are abstract and not phenomenal would math or logic ever be considered real to you. They’re certainly useful and rational and necessitate the physical medium on which they’re stored/used. My question is if a strict physical materialist considers thoughts as objectively verifiable or not? If thoughts are predictable wouldn’t they be objectifiable and measurable?

Yes. More to the point, if thought was not measurable and identifiable as a electro/bio/chemical process, you couldn't use electrodes to control things remotely, as you can now (although it hasn't filtered down to free market products yet).
The technology is (relatively) basic at the moment, but year by year we do more and more amazing things based entirely on this premise that thoughts are not only predictable, but objectifiable and measurable, so that we can use that information to influence the brain using external methods.

More to the point, if thought is something separate from the brain, why does affecting the brain through chemical, electrical or ultrasound affect what it does and how it thinks (for instance increase in seratonin makes you happy, increase in dopamine can affect your reward driven learning).

7- So let me continue that thought. Part of who we are is our perception and desires. Those desires and perceptions are both outputs and inputs to the causal chain. If they can be shown to be altered, shows we have the ability to not be the sum of what physiological elements determine to be “us” or our agent. If we can supply the input (with desires, goals and perceptions) to the causal chain we are enacting our freedom from a determined course.

Does that follow logically?

I think its best I describe my interpretation of your argument so that you can tell me if I got it all wrong.

Are you saying that there is a feedback loop between conscious and subconscious states. What the subconscious projects, the conscious perceives, and feeds back to the subconscious, changes to its "program" based upon the conscious reasoning of the perceived information from the subconscious.
Wow, that was a mouthful.

So if we can show that the conscious can input back to the subconscious to change our state, then this is a demonstration of free will.

Does that match what you were describing? Its at this point I have to start with my unproven conjecture instead of any reliance on material science.

What the power of the conscious really represents is a way of ordering information, and simplifying them into more manageable models or symbols.
In order to reason, the "self", the "I", the "Me" is a created symbol to holistically represent all the information which is related to your personal body.
What this does not indicate however, is that the ordering and reasoning is uncaused, and disconnected from the biology itself.
The feedback loop is causal in itself but the mechanism for simplifying overly complex information so that it can transmitted back into the subconscious in a more manageable form.
While a link in the causal chain of thinking, this does not imply freedom from causation any more than a fractal picture is free from the maths. Its purely symbolic in nature.

My head hurts.

---

6- OK so you also consider abstracts and noumena as real if they are observable or measurable. I’m not saying that thought is completely divorced from observation. It very well can be affect by outside or internal forces. That actually, was my original point.

7- Yes that would be an accurate description. If we can show that the conscious can input back into the subconscious to a desired change against a current state it demonstrates free will. I think we are all also agreeing that will and identity are both part of the causal chain. So then what are thoughts, memories and concepts? Are they conceptualizations of the physical placement of synapses? That would mean that we have about 1000 billion thoughts we could possibly think that the brain evolved to from genetic code. So how could the human genome (somewhere in the 6 billion bits of information range) form something it couldn’t have the code for?

I think we’re starting to diverge from topic though, I’ll sum up at the end.

---

2- I agree that contents of memories don’t change with time, only our ability to recall them.

This is wrong. Memories are to a large part synthetic - elements are added and removed to the extent that they may content things that were objectively not there or the erasure of significant things which were.

---

I clearly defined which memories I was talking about. But the simplest example would be things like eidetic memory, memory savants or hyperthymestic syndrome. For most of us how well we remember something is based on how many times it’s been processed through the various areas (like the amygdala) and how we organize it. The quality for some though is so exact as to be straight from initial perception. Memories themselves, aside from the person holding the memory and how their brain works, don’t necessarily have degradation with time.

---

1-OK so we can agree that thoughts are part of a causal chain, real and intangible. Please define what qualifies as real for you.

Things which exist and can be perceived either directly or through effect.

2- I agree that contents of memories don’t change with time, only our ability to recall them. If you want to consider them temporal because the medium they’re housed in fine. I agree that the physical medium is subject to timeline merely by definition of physical. However I don’t consider sequential order the same as being part of the active timeline. The semantic memories have no time correlation and are a sum of the factual knowledge. They may be gathered sequentially, however they are readily recalled out of sequence for reference and are not attached with a “time stamp” if you will. I agree that episodic memories are much more temporal as are the mediums that both are housed on.

Read my argument again. I said that the content of the memory may be consider atemporal - but that does not mean they can exist without a temporal reality. While being atemporal in nature, they still are a derivative of the temporal reality.

3-glad we could reach a consensus on phenomena and noumena. Guess the question now would be are noumena real to you? To follow that, are they reliable?

Noumena as defined here - very much so. But reliable - not certainly. The noumena are created by the consciousness as a product of phenomena through the process of abstraction. There may be errors (or deliberate manipulations) in this process which leave it not completely reliable.

4-Some argue just that “the apple is” is declarative of its place in reality, regardless of the perception of said apple. Truth then doesn’t lose all meaning, but describing the objective truth of the apple’s existence is purely subjective. If existence is determined only by perspective, it’s only determined by consensus and that truth is relatively useless, no pun intended. However you have to first establish existence, then description, then filter as much bias as you can to get a useful perspective. Only then can you use logic, reason and recall to effectively use the object. While I agree that perception can be erroneous, that still leaves the question from 1 and 3.

This argument seems more or less correct. Does this mean you have conceded your previously held position that the identity is determined by perspective?

5-I do know what coercion means thank you, but I appreciate your concern. Unfortunately you’re only relegating it to a force against will, which I believe is in error. Coercion is the power to use force to gain compliance. You can, in our examples, use (apply force) coercion (of will) to change the agent (the I) against a subset of that agent being innate physical (or genetic, or learned, or programmed) nature.

Consider the definition you use - "force to gain compliance". Which means, compliance did not exist before. When talking about conscious agents and coercion - the non-compliance comes from its will. Non-compliance due to innate or programmed nature does not come within that purview.

For example, even if you are using physical force to get a child into a bath (and you are doing so in all the actions of picking it up etc.), it is not coercion unless the child doesn't want to take the bath - unless its against its will. With regards to coercion, the existence of contrary wills on both sides of the actions is necessary.

---

1 & 2- By your definition then nothing can exist without temporal reality so in reality the more correct definition for existence having a base in temporal reality and perceived. See for me, being caused by, a derivative of or housed in physical medium
3- So all I can conclude from you on that statement is math is real, but unreliable because it’s an abstraction.
4- No I don’t. Perception is a process for observation. It certainly plays a part in identity. I believe identity to be the conscious and subconscious sum of self identity both natural and learned. Now if you could show me someone who is incapable of introspection or self-reflection I might agree that identity has no dependence on perception.
5- As far as coercion goes, here are my thoughts. You’re only limiting the agent to the conscious mind. I believe identity spans the conscious and subconscious mind. The subconscious mind, IMO, holds the bulk of identity and little power or force of will. On the other hand I feel the conscious mind has the bulk of responsibility for directing the force of will and a minimal/ limited picture of identity. Yes, if we’re talking about only the conscious agent, then I agree that it can’t be coerced by itself. Let’s use an example for clarity. Normal person has a breakdown and does something to be considered criminally insane. They’re “out of their mind” at the time it happens. All that really means is that while on his killing spree or baby burning his conscious mind lost control of the force of will to his subconscious nature. To return to a normal state his conscious will would have to coerce his subconscious identity back into its less controlling role. Then he would be coercing himself. The whole concept of self-help and the introspective cognitive loops I described earlier would be the mechanism for this, which I defined as establishing free-will. Free from the prevailing identity (subconscious) to the preferred (conscious). I mean I’m sure you’ve heard the term “at war with yourself” and that quintessentially is the 2 sides of the tug of war of will and allows for its freedom.

In summation because I think we’re getting off topic:
I believe will is illusory in that it is an abstract. It is a key part of the causal mechanism that self corrects the mind. I consider it useful, reliable, axiomatic and therefore real (or as real as math is practical). I act therefore will is free, so to speak. It can be free because of the duality of the mind. Thoughts can be measured, manipulated and simulated, and are dependant (at the very least only reportable by) on the brain. I still don’t feel that the evolutionary hypothesis that they’re created by the human genome can account for the mind. I’m not sure even 1000 billion of synapses are enough to account for every aspect of every observable phenomenon. If there could be any objective truths they would probably be so divorced from what we use daily for reality (perception) to never even be noticed.

Man you guys can sure work a dumb theist around the ring a bit. I think I’m going to relax this weekend, as much as I’m enjoying the conversation and cogitate.

[NoMoreFaith]

7- Yes that would be an accurate description. If we can show that the conscious can input back into the subconscious to a desired change against a current state it demonstrates free will. I think we are all also agreeing that will and identity are both part of the causal chain. So then what are thoughts, memories and concepts? Are they conceptualizations of the physical placement of synapses? That would mean that we have about 1000 billion thoughts we could possibly think that the brain evolved to from genetic code. So how could the human genome (somewhere in the 6 billion bits of information range) form something it couldn’t have the code for?

Consciousness is the illusion created by symbolic conceptualisations of complex collations of information from electrochemical memories and stimuli from prediction centres etc etc, that's my theory more or less.
The self being one of these useful symbols.

I still don’t feel that the evolutionary hypothesis that they’re created by the human genome can account for the mind. I’m not sure even 1000 billion of synapses are enough to account for every aspect of every observable phenomenon. If there could be any objective truths they would probably be so divorced from what we use daily for reality (perception) to never even be noticed.

I should clarify, the human genome does not account for the mind, it accounts merely for the structure of the brain and its learning capabilities. What we call the mind, is not truly dualistic, our abilities are learnt, motor control, concept of self etc.
The argument from irreducible complexity is not compelling to me. I find it quite conceivable that evolution over billions of years has created such a well developed framework for this illusion of dual minds.

I agree about objective truth thou, our bodies limit the information that can be received to a massive extent, what we see, what we feel, what we hear. We have remarkably limited senses.

[genkaus]

1 & 2- By your definition then nothing can exist without temporal reality so in reality the more correct definition for existence having a base in temporal reality and perceived. See for me, being caused by, a derivative of or housed in physical medium

No, it is the existence of noumena and phenomena that has a base in temporal reality. My first statement speaks nothing of existence of noumena and my second one says nothing to limit existence to phenomena and noumena.

3- So all I can conclude from you on that statement is math is real, but unreliable because it’s an abstraction.

No, it's simply "not certainly reliable". It becomes unreliable only in certain contexts - such as wrong math.

4- No I don’t. Perception is a process for observation. It certainly plays a part in identity. I believe identity to be the conscious and subconscious sum of self identity both natural and learned. Now if you could show me someone who is incapable of introspection or self-reflection I might agree that identity has no dependence on perception.

Here you are not using the word "identity" consistently. As per your prior argument, it seemed like when talking about identity, you were referring to the state of an entity's metaphysical existence - something you admitted is independent of any consciousness. But that is not the meaning you use here. Basically, at one point, identity means "what one is" and at another "what one thinks one is".

5- As far as coercion goes, here are my thoughts. You’re only limiting the agent to the conscious mind. I believe identity spans the conscious and subconscious mind. The subconscious mind, IMO, holds the bulk of identity and little power or force of will. On the other hand I feel the conscious mind has the bulk of responsibility for directing the force of will and a minimal/ limited picture of identity. Yes, if we’re talking about only the conscious agent, then I agree that it can’t be coerced by itself. Let’s use an example for clarity. Normal person has a breakdown and does something to be considered criminally insane. They’re “out of their mind” at the time it happens. All that really means is that while on his killing spree or baby burning his conscious mind lost control of the force of will to his subconscious nature. To return to a normal state his conscious will would have to coerce his subconscious identity back into its less controlling role. Then he would be coercing himself. The whole concept of self-help and the introspective cognitive loops I described earlier would be the mechanism for this, which I defined as establishing free-will. Free from the prevailing identity (subconscious) to the preferred (conscious). I mean I’m sure you’ve heard the term “at war with yourself” and that quintessentially is the 2 sides of the tug of war of will and allows for its freedom.

I should have been more clear regarding the use of conscious and subconscious, as should you.

Conscious means aware - not necessarily self-aware. Insects are conscious beings, even if they have no concept of self.

Within a conscious, for humans, there could be two parts - self-conscious (formally also referred to as simply conscious) and subconscious. Subconscious is also a part of consciousness - it simply isn't self-aware.

Further, I'd say - one individual - one identity - one consciousness. The identity and consciousness would be the sum of the self and sub. Therefore, we can add - one consciousness - one will. Any internal conflicts get resolved according to the identity at the moment.

To accept your position on coercion, I'd have to treat an individual as two separate entities - both with independent identities and wills. That is simply not applicable when you consider the individual as a whole.

In summation because I think we’re getting off topic:
I believe will is illusory in that it is an abstract. It is a key part of the causal mechanism that self corrects the mind. I consider it useful, reliable, axiomatic and therefore real (or as real as math is practical). I act therefore will is free, so to speak. It can be free because of the duality of the mind. Thoughts can be measured, manipulated and simulated, and are dependant (at the very least only reportable by) on the brain. I still don’t feel that the evolutionary hypothesis that they’re created by the human genome can account for the mind. I’m not sure even 1000 billion of synapses are enough to account for every aspect of every observable phenomenon. If there could be any objective truths they would probably be so divorced from what we use daily for reality (perception) to never even be noticed.

Your premise here - that of duality of mind - still stands unjustified. Classical dualist positions usually entail independent existence of phenomenon and noumenon - but then you don't use their definition of noumenon and therefore your position is nothing like there's. Therefore, currently, both your position on dualism and how it leads to free-will is unclear.

[tackattack]

---

7- Yes that would be an accurate description. If we can show that the conscious can input back into the subconscious to a desired change against a current state it demonstrates free will. I think we are all also agreeing that will and identity are both part of the causal chain. So then what are thoughts, memories and concepts? Are they conceptualizations of the physical placement of synapses? That would mean that we have about 1000 billion thoughts we could possibly think that the brain evolved to from genetic code. So how could the human genome (somewhere in the 6 billion bits of information range) form something it couldn’t have the code for?

Consciousness is the illusion created by symbolic conceptualisations of complex collations of information from electrochemical memories and stimuli from prediction centres etc etc, that's my theory more or less.
The self being one of these useful symbols.

I still don’t feel that the evolutionary hypothesis that they’re created by the human genome can account for the mind. I’m not sure even 1000 billion of synapses are enough to account for every aspect of every observable phenomenon. If there could be any objective truths they would probably be so divorced from what we use daily for reality (perception) to never even be noticed.

I should clarify, the human genome does not account for the mind, it accounts merely for the structure of the brain and its learning capabilities. What we call the mind, is not truly dualistic, our abilities are learnt, motor control, concept of self etc.
The argument from irreducible complexity is not compelling to me. I find it quite conceivable that evolution over billions of years has created such a well developed framework for this illusion of dual minds.

I agree about objective truth thou, our bodies limit the information that can be received to a massive extent, what we see, what we feel, what we hear. We have remarkably limited senses.

1 & 2- By your definition then nothing can exist without temporal reality so in reality the more correct definition for existence having a base in temporal reality and perceived. See for me, being caused by, a derivative of or housed in physical medium

No, it is the existence of noumena and phenomena that has a base in temporal reality. My first statement speaks nothing of existence of noumena and my second one says nothing to limit existence to phenomena and noumena.

3- So all I can conclude from you on that statement is math is real, but unreliable because it’s an abstraction.

No, it's simply "not certainly reliable". It becomes unreliable only in certain contexts - such as wrong math.

4- No I don’t. Perception is a process for observation. It certainly plays a part in identity. I believe identity to be the conscious and subconscious sum of self identity both natural and learned. Now if you could show me someone who is incapable of introspection or self-reflection I might agree that identity has no dependence on perception.

Here you are not using the word "identity" consistently. As per your prior argument, it seemed like when talking about identity, you were referring to the state of an entity's metaphysical existence - something you admitted is independent of any consciousness. But that is not the meaning you use here. Basically, at one point, identity means "what one is" and at another "what one thinks one is".

5- As far as coercion goes, here are my thoughts. You’re only limiting the agent to the conscious mind. I believe identity spans the conscious and subconscious mind. The subconscious mind, IMO, holds the bulk of identity and little power or force of will. On the other hand I feel the conscious mind has the bulk of responsibility for directing the force of will and a minimal/ limited picture of identity. Yes, if we’re talking about only the conscious agent, then I agree that it can’t be coerced by itself. Let’s use an example for clarity. Normal person has a breakdown and does something to be considered criminally insane. They’re “out of their mind” at the time it happens. All that really means is that while on his killing spree or baby burning his conscious mind lost control of the force of will to his subconscious nature. To return to a normal state his conscious will would have to coerce his subconscious identity back into its less controlling role. Then he would be coercing himself. The whole concept of self-help and the introspective cognitive loops I described earlier would be the mechanism for this, which I defined as establishing free-will. Free from the prevailing identity (subconscious) to the preferred (conscious). I mean I’m sure you’ve heard the term “at war with yourself” and that quintessentially is the 2 sides of the tug of war of will and allows for its freedom.

I should have been more clear regarding the use of conscious and subconscious, as should you.

Conscious means aware - not necessarily self-aware. Insects are conscious beings, even if they have no concept of self.

Within a conscious, for humans, there could be two parts - self-conscious (formally also referred to as simply conscious) and subconscious. Subconscious is also a part of consciousness - it simply isn't self-aware.

Further, I'd say - one individual - one identity - one consciousness. The identity and consciousness would be the sum of the self and sub. Therefore, we can add - one consciousness - one will. Any internal conflicts get resolved according to the identity at the moment.

To accept your position on coercion, I'd have to treat an individual as two separate entities - both with independent identities and wills. That is simply not applicable when you consider the individual as a whole.

In summation because I think we’re getting off topic:
I believe will is illusory in that it is an abstract. It is a key part of the causal mechanism that self corrects the mind. I consider it useful, reliable, axiomatic and therefore real (or as real as math is practical). I act therefore will is free, so to speak. It can be free because of the duality of the mind. Thoughts can be measured, manipulated and simulated, and are dependant (at the very least only reportable by) on the brain. I still don’t feel that the evolutionary hypothesis that they’re created by the human genome can account for the mind. I’m not sure even 1000 billion of synapses are enough to account for every aspect of every observable phenomenon. If there could be any objective truths they would probably be so divorced from what we use daily for reality (perception) to never even be noticed.

Your premise here - that of duality of mind - still stands unjustified. Classical dualist positions usually entail independent existence of phenomenon and noumenon - but then you don't use their definition of noumenon and therefore your position is nothing like there's. Therefore, currently, both your position on dualism and how it leads to free-will is unclear.

---

I’ll condense both arguments more succinctly here, as the divergent conversations are getting to be a bit taxing for me to keep up with. We’re basically talking about 3 things here:

1a- Whether consciousness is real enough to be considered existing, as more than an abstract thought?
1b- Whether that consciousness resides in the material or elsewhere?

2a- If will is real enough to be considered existing, as more than an abstract thought?
2b- Where does will reside in the material or elsewhere?

3a- Is will free from coercion?
3b- What part does will (free or not) play in the agent?

I’ve tried gathering the collection of posts and getting an idea of where everyone else is, at time’s I’m correct, but usually wrong. So I’ll just answer for myself as my day is drawing to its close.
1a-Even in the worst cases of brain damage or mental reprogramming, I’ve yet to see someone lose that irreducible sense of self I deem as the agent. I think this is largely due to a large tie between identity and experience. I believe that since we experience things in the now and the movement of our timeline is constant, who we are at any moment is inexplicably tied to each moment. As long as moments continue independent of self, the self experiences passing through that timeline. As long as I am experiencing the temporal self moving through the now, I have an irreducible identity. That to me is as fundamentally real as the passage of time.
1b- As no successful attempts have changed this irreducible identity, at least that portion of consciousness remains unknown as to its location. Certainly though it’s not in the material as all brain function can cease and (upon its resuscitation) the majority of the identity is intact. Even in cases of coma where it has been shown that no record of time is kept with consciousness (people waking up thinking it’s 20 years ago) identity still exists.

2a-at the very least will exist as a useful abstract thought. I believe conscious (read as self-aware consciousness or ego) use of will is a driving force implementing desires and thus is a huge functional part of the causal chain in personal action. While not certain, I find ego driven will reliable and axiomatic that I can force myself to act contrary to the way my id or nature desires me to act.
2b- I would say will exist in the consciousness. Sometimes the id uses it and we act (seemingly) involuntarily, sometime the ego uses it (free or coercion). It seems to span both but residing squarely in the conceptual mind. This mind could be the sum of concepts and entirely an illusory fabrication of synapses firing. With the limited number of genomes and vastly expansive amount of synapses I know that the genome isn’t creating a mind with its genetic plans. If the 1000 billion or so synapses is even able to permanently record every bit of experienced information in a lifetime is yet to be seen as well, and I don’t think it’s simply big enough to hold the sum total of consciousness. Even if we could read exact thoughts and implant those thoughts into someone else it doesn’t make the mind strictly visible. It merely concludes that expression of the mind must be done through the window of the physical brain.
3a- If run by the id it’s out of direct control and therefore under the influence of instinctual drives and beliefs. If run by the ego it’s directly controlled by the self-aware ego part of the consciousness and free from influence.
3b-This comes from the feedback loop between the id and ego with relation to identity. “Who I am” is a function of the super-ego and this feedback loop. “Who I am” drives my will and can influence “who I am”, go against the ego or the id and can thus be independent of coercion.

[genkaus]

I’ll condense both arguments more succinctly here, as the divergent conversations are getting to be a bit taxing for me to keep up with.

Would not make a difference. We are still going to reply separately.

We’re basically talking about 3 things here:

1a- Whether consciousness is real enough to be considered existing, as more than an abstract thought?
1b- Whether that consciousness resides in the material or elsewhere?

2a- If will is real enough to be considered existing, as more than an abstract thought?
2b- Where does will reside in the material or elsewhere?

3a- Is will free from coercion?
3b- What part does will (free or not) play in the agent?

I see my objections coming mostly in the b's. Only in the third one there is a question of coercion.

1a-Even in the worst cases of brain damage or mental reprogramming, I’ve yet to see someone lose that irreducible sense of self I deem as the agent. I think this is largely due to a large tie between identity and experience. I believe that since we experience things in the now and the movement of our timeline is constant, who we are at any moment is inexplicably tied to each moment. As long as moments continue independent of self, the self experiences passing through that timeline. As long as I am experiencing the temporal self moving through the now, I have an irreducible identity. That to me is as fundamentally real as the passage of time.

Yes, but do you consider that self to remain the same throughout or change according to time? By your answer here, I'd say the latter.

Secondly, what do you mean by irreducible? For example, a person in a coma has no consciousness due to the brain damage. Would you still consider him to have the sense of self?

1b- As no successful attempts have changed this irreducible identity, at least that portion of consciousness remains unknown as to its location. Certainly though it’s not in the material as all brain function can cease and (upon its resuscitation) the majority of the identity is intact. Even in cases of coma where it has been shown that no record of time is kept with consciousness (people waking up thinking it’s 20 years ago) identity still exists.

This part is inconsistent with what you said previously. While claiming the "self" to have irreducible identity, you did not assert that it is independent of the timeline.

Further, your absence of knowledge as to its location is not argument for its immateriality. In fact, the examples you provided work against the assumption. The self could be considered both irreducible and emergent, i.e. it arises from a particular configuration of the brain (emergent) but cannot exist if any part of it is taken away (irreducible). You examples show that as long as that particular configuration exists, the self exists - irrespective of any intermediate time when that configuration did not exist.

2a-at the very least will exist as a useful abstract thought. I believe conscious (read as self-aware consciousness or ego) use of will is a driving force implementing desires and thus is a huge functional part of the causal chain in personal action. While not certain, I find ego driven will reliable and axiomatic that I can force myself to act contrary to the way my id or nature desires me to act.

Mostly ok. Few nitpicks though. Firstly, you cannot consider this position axiomatic if it is based on your view of the "self" as it seems to be. Secondly, your nature is not the same as your id - it includes your id as well as your conscious will. So, while you can act against your will, you cannot act against your nature.

2b- I would say will exist in the consciousness. Sometimes the id uses it and we act (seemingly) involuntarily, sometime the ego uses it (free or coercion). It seems to span both but residing squarely in the conceptual mind. This mind could be the sum of concepts and entirely an illusory fabrication of synapses firing. With the limited number of genomes and vastly expansive amount of synapses I know that the genome isn’t creating a mind with its genetic plans. If the 1000 billion or so synapses is even able to permanently record every bit of experienced information in a lifetime is yet to be seen as well, and I don’t think it’s simply big enough to hold the sum total of consciousness. Even if we could read exact thoughts and implant those thoughts into someone else it doesn’t make the mind strictly visible. It merely concludes that expression of the mind must be done through the window of the physical brain.

This is the point where your justified answers end. You haven't shown any justification for the position of non-physical mind - except for the lack of ignorance about the complete physical explanation. Ergo, your argument here of "simply not big enough" is argument from incredulity.

3a- If run by the id it’s out of direct control and therefore under the influence of instinctual drives and beliefs. If run by the ego it’s directly controlled by the self-aware ego part of the consciousness and free from influence.

Free from influence of the id, but not the ego. An important distinction.

3b-This comes from the feedback loop between the id and ego with relation to identity. “Who I am” is a function of the super-ego and this feedback loop. “Who I am” drives my will and can influence “who I am”, go against the ego or the id and can thus be independent of coercion.

The problem I have here is that you are considering all three - id, ego and super-ego as three different entities. Within the context of the question of "Who I am" - you are answering - my super-ego, not my id or ego. Thus, you can claim coercion in case of id/ego-directed action. I see all three subsumed in the identity and therefore do not consider it coercion in case of id/ego driven behavior. Thus, my question here is, on what basis do you separate the identity of a person from his id or ego?

[NoMoreFaith]

---

1a-Even in the worst cases of brain damage or mental reprogramming, I’ve yet to see someone lose that irreducible sense of self I deem as the agent. I think this is largely due to a large tie between identity and experience. I believe that since we experience things in the now and the movement of our timeline is constant, who we are at any moment is inexplicably tied to each moment. As long as moments continue independent of self, the self experiences passing through that timeline. As long as I am experiencing the temporal self moving through the now, I have an irreducible identity. That to me is as fundamentally real as the passage of time.
1b- As no successful attempts have changed this irreducible identity, at least that portion of consciousness remains unknown as to its location. Certainly though it’s not in the material as all brain function can cease and (upon its resuscitation) the majority of the identity is intact. Even in cases of coma where it has been shown that no record of time is kept with consciousness (people waking up thinking it’s 20 years ago) identity still exists.

---

1a- This irreducible self that you claim, is subject to consistent change, the self is not a static entity. Chemical inbalance, damage all affect the personality and actions of a person.
If there was any dualism to the self, it should not be affected by chemicals and physical damage.
If the irreducible self is just basic consciousness, then we have a slight issue with the abstract nature of what it is which needs to be more clearly defined. The irreducible self is the same as any irreducible evolutionary problem, that as a whole is a mystery as to its conception, and the clues to its creation lies in evolutionary history, alas, brains don't fossilise well or usefully enough I think.
However, no irreducible thing has ever held up to scrutiny in the past, so for the moment this is merely a gap theory in that, we don't know for certain HOW it works, therefore it is a separate metaphysical entity.

Certainly though it’s not in the material as all brain function can cease and (upon its resuscitation) the majority of the identity is intact. Even in cases of coma where it has been shown that no record of time is kept with consciousness (people waking up thinking it’s 20 years ago) identity still exists.

Thats brain death, and the self does NOT survive that.

A coma is a reduction to the low state of brain function. The body still functions to provide electrical and chemical energy to the brain. Any idea of self is contained in stasis.

Medically, the definition of death is the cessation of electrical activity in the brain. The self is gone, never to come back, because the energy that makes it possible for the illusion to be sustained has gone.

2a-at the very least will exist as a useful abstract thought. I believe conscious (read as self-aware consciousness or ego) use of will is a driving force implementing desires and thus is a huge functional part of the causal chain in personal action. While not certain, I find ego driven will reliable and axiomatic that I can force myself to act contrary to the way my id or nature desires me to act.
2b- I would say will exist in the consciousness. Sometimes the id uses it and we act (seemingly) involuntarily, sometime the ego uses it (free or coercion). It seems to span both but residing squarely in the conceptual mind. This mind could be the sum of concepts and entirely an illusory fabrication of synapses firing. With the limited number of genomes and vastly expansive amount of synapses I know that the genome isn’t creating a mind with its genetic plans. If the 1000 billion or so synapses is even able to permanently record every bit of experienced information in a lifetime is yet to be seen as well, and I don’t think it’s simply big enough to hold the sum total of consciousness. Even if we could read exact thoughts and implant those thoughts into someone else it doesn’t make the mind strictly visible. It merely concludes that expression of the mind must be done through the window of the physical brain.

2a As an abstract its a useful illusion, and necessary one at that.
Whether you are truly acting against your desires is debatable, but more closely linked to your perception of those desires.
2b It should be noted that the concept of Ego is seen to be a "mere facade" and any attributions you add to that are mere speculation/assertion as opposed to any psychological understanding of the word.
The Id being animalistic desires, and most certainly determined by needs.
As for the brain being incapable of holding the information acquired over a lifetime.

I also need to debunk this idea that the brain could not conceivably hold all that information. Remember, a neuron cannot hold a memory by itself, the memory is held through combinations of neurons, many of which are reused in the construction of these memories. This much we know for sure.
The combination between interactions of these neurons mathematically would exceed the number of atoms in the universe. You really sure we can't remember a lot? It would work out at about 300 million hours of tv recording. Thats 350 years worth. This is probably limited by the combinations possible and restrictions, but the point is sound enough... there is plenty room for a LOT of memory.

As for 3a and 3b, I need some citations on your understanding of the Id, Ego and Superego, because they certainly have nothing to do with Freud's creation of the terms, and certainly have nothing to do with a free will.