Free will & the Conservation Laws

[The Grand Nudger]

Sensory stimuli isn't limited to animate objects.  The car you drive, likely, has sensors and sensory stimuli. Unless you drive an old beater like me, ofc....lol....in which case whatever sensors used to exist have long since gone, leaving my poor 80's Chevy in a state of pronounced senility.

[bennyboy]

Generally...when there's no way to determine a difference between two things or potential states....it's because there isn't one.  

I think that you make a mistake in considering consciousness to be something which you can only assume.  Do you simply assume that a rock -isn't- conscious, and what conclusion must you first assume when trying to determine the conscious status of a rock (for or against), exactly?  Additionally, why is the choice between "philosophical zombies" and experience...are you sure that they're opposing states?  When I watch a movie I;m experiencing it, but I'm not in control of how it plays out for the simple fact of being conscious myself.  

Personally, I think that people silently attach thing to consciousness and then formulate objections to those things -as- consciousness.  It's probably not intentional.......zombies after all, lol. 

Did someone call me?

[bennyboy]

As for the rest of your comments, if you consider free will to be in violation of the Conservation Laws (the topic of my OP), please state that.

I don't think free will can even be defined. It's a useless nebulous concept unless used in relation to something else. As I said, free from what?

You'd first have to define free will before stating whether or not it violates any physical laws.

That's seems a little rude, since in the exact post previous to Jehanne's, I literally just defined free will, and said what it was free from.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Sensory stimuli isn't limited to animate objects.  The car you drive, likely, has sensors and sensory stimuli.  Unless you drive an old beater like me, ofc....lol....in which case whatever sensors used to exist have long since gone, leaving my poor 80's Chevy in a state of pronounced senility.  

The car is an animate object.

Well most are.

My last two Nissan Micras quickly turned inanimate.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't think that it's animate in the sense that we used the term in the last few posts, however....despite both of our colorful experiences with cars.  

I'm only pointing out that your objection refers to sensory stimuli, not animacy. It's a non-operative addendum to the objection. That something is inanimate, does not prevent sensory stimuli, and sensory stimuli is not limited to animate objects. This is what I meant earlier, when I said that people attach things to consciousness and then form objections to those -as- consciousness. You've attached animacy to sensory stimuli, your objection is to the lack of sensory stimuli -as- animacy, not animacy.

I agree, btw, consciousness demands sensory stimuli. There must be something to be conscious -of- or the term is meaningless.

[I_am_not_mafia]

I don't think free will can even be defined. It's a useless nebulous concept unless used in relation to something else. As I said, free from what?

You'd first have to define free will before stating whether or not it violates any physical laws.

That's seems a little rude, since in the exact post previous to Jehanne's, I literally just defined free will, and said what it was free from.

Didn't intend to be rude. Apologies to whoever you thought that I was rude to.

Free will is the unfettered ability to act according to one's nature in a given circumstance.

Good point but 'unfettered' still does not suggest as to what could possibly be doing the fettering. And leaves 'nature' open to equivocation by theists.

While I generally agree with your definition it's not what people like Jehanne are talking about with regards to free will but yet refuse to define. Your definition is useful in scope of say a court room where you say that you signed a contract under your own free will and did not have a gun to your head. A context which Jehanne and theists generally use it is out of scope for this definition of free will.

I'd argue that anything more than this is out of scope for the concept of free will. Because you could argue for example that signing a contract while having a gun to your head was still made freely because you responding to your in-born survival instinct. Yet that would not be useful.

[bennyboy]

Good point but 'unfettered' still does not suggest as to what could possibly be doing the fettering. And leaves 'nature' open to equivocation by theists.

Fetters could be doing the fettering.

[The Grand Nudger]

..and the fetters of one's nature..what of those?   Are those not fetters? Are you not fettered by them? In what way is your will unfettered?

[robvalue]

Well, I'm referring to having an experience. "I" am nothing more than a non-static collection of cells, yet "I" have an experience as a whole. Maybe a rock has an experience, of a different kind. The experience seems to be a byproduct of consciousness. That doesn't mean it's the only thing it can come from. You could argue that there is no experience, that this too is an illusion. But it's all I actually have!

I have no reason to think rocks do have an experience, and it's unfalsifiable and therefor useless. This is exactly what happens when you do the WLC thing and use philosophy without evidence. You reach no conclusions that are of any use.

I'm differentiating between consciousness and the experience, because in my case I have an experience. I can't be sure anyone else does. I think it's called the "problem of other minds", formally. Something like that. I think it's unsolvable. Of course, I assume other people do have experiences. It's a very sensible assumption. I'd have no reason to think they don't; I just can't be sure.

I have no idea what probability I'd give to solipsism being true or false, if I had to guess I'd say 50/50. But given solipsism is false, I'd be happy saying 99% that other "people" have experiences.

If you guys feel that is part of solipsism, or that it doesn't even need assuming, that's cool. Personally, I think it is an assumption, but a very sensible and obvious one. Again, it's unfalsifiable and therefor useless.

Coming back to rocks: they have no way to communicate their experience, at least none that we know of. That doesn't mean they don't have any. I wouldn't find it any more absurd than us having experiences. It's just ours are in your face.

But this is all mental masturbation. I find it interesting, but it's useless.

[LadyForCamus]

Free will is the unfettered ability to act according to one's nature in a given circumstance.

That is one possible definition (the "compatibilist" one?) which however, imho, does not capture the moral and metaphysical ideas that are usually at stake when people talk of "free will". Free will is often thought to be some kind of magic sauce which is supposed to render our minds autonomous and independent of worldly influences.

Mmmmm...magic sauce...just like mama used to make. [emoji478]