(December 24, 2014 at 8:05 am)bennyboy Wrote: I think this is a philosophical question. The question is whether we both see the thing the same way-- and if not, can either the monkeys or I be said to see what is real? Or is the nature of what we see more a comment on monkeyness and humanity than the actual physical reality of the car?

You and I don't see things the same way either. I think that this is an enormous and unjustifiable burden for an object to be considered "real". I'm content with our experiences being about the "actual physical reality of the car", that they are not snapshots of that "actual physical reality" probably has something to do with human beings not being cameras.

(December 24, 2014 at 12:43 pm)Rhythm Wrote: You and I don't see things the same way either. I think that this is an enormous and unjustifiable burden for an object to be considered "real". I'm content with our experiences being about the "actual physical reality of the car", that they are not snapshots of that "actual physical reality" probably has something to do with human beings not being cameras.

Okay, so each of us experiences differently than each other, and neither of us experiences the universe as it really is (i.e. as a bunch of QM particles or maybe something even more subtle but as yet undiscovered). So where do we get off even talking about what is "real" and what isn't? By what criteria do we really establish the reality of something?

(December 24, 2014 at 2:21 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(December 24, 2014 at 12:43 pm)Rhythm Wrote: You and I don't see things the same way either. I think that this is an enormous and unjustifiable burden for an object to be considered "real". I'm content with our experiences being about the "actual physical reality of the car", that they are not snapshots of that "actual physical reality" probably has something to do with human beings not being cameras.

Okay, so each of us experiences differently than each other

Is there any other way?

Quote:, and neither of us experiences the universe as it really is (i.e. as a bunch of QM particles or maybe something even more subtle but as yet undiscovered). So where do we get off even talking about what is "real" and what isn't? By what criteria do we really establish the reality of something?

:kicks a rock:

Now you try. Next we'll take some pictures of the rock. We'll chip bits off and put them in a lab. Maybe..lets see what happens the the "rock" heaped up with explosives. This doesn't seem to be very difficult. In short, precisely as we already do.
(we may or may not be experiencing something "as-is", sort of a case by case basis, eh? In the case of "free will" though, I'd have to say that we aren't.)

I would say something is real, in a given reality, if it is available to be experienced by all potential observers in that reality.

I just pulled that out my arse, so it may need cleaning up

---

I thought of another test. After slashing it with my chainsaw, if it's still in one piece, it's not real.

(December 24, 2014 at 4:43 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(December 24, 2014 at 2:21 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Okay, so each of us experiences differently than each other

Is there any other way?

Quote:, and neither of us experiences the universe as it really is (i.e. as a bunch of QM particles or maybe something even more subtle but as yet undiscovered). So where do we get off even talking about what is "real" and what isn't? By what criteria do we really establish the reality of something?

:kicks a rock:

Now you try. Next we'll take some pictures of the rock. We'll chip bits off and put them in a lab. Maybe..lets see what happens the the "rock" heaped up with explosives. This doesn't seem to be very difficult. In short, precisely as we already do.
(we may or may not be experiencing something "as-is", sort of a case by case basis, eh? In the case of "free will" though, I'd have to say that we aren't.)

Okay, and this is where I've been trying to go: the standard of reality is in all cases simply that something feels real to you. EVEN THOUGH we know that we do not experience Mom or a Ferrari as those things really exist in a purely scientific sense, we consider them perfectly real-- indisputably real, really.

We seem to be engaged in special pleading with regard to free will-- only IT can be said to exist if it represents the mechanism of the physical universe as we know it, right down to the functions of QM particles.

---

(December 24, 2014 at 4:54 pm)robvalue Wrote: I would say something is real, in a given reality, if it is available to be experienced by all potential observers in that reality.

I just pulled that out my arse, so it may need cleaning up

---

I thought of another test. After slashing it with my chainsaw, if it's still in one piece, it's not real.

Cannot all humans observe the reality of free will, constantly and throughout the day?

(December 24, 2014 at 7:56 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Okay, and this is where I've been trying to go: the standard of reality is in all cases simply that something feels real to you. EVEN THOUGH we know that we do not experience Mom or a Ferrari as those things really exist in a purely scientific sense, we consider them perfectly real-- indisputably real, really.

I don't think that would make a very good standard for reality - as any of my posts can attest to. What "feels real" and what "is real" are not always the same thing. That wouldn't mean that nothing was happening - just that we were mistaken about what was happening. Still very unfamiliar language for me...as I happen to think that we do what we do wonderfully , even our flaws turn to our benefit more often than not.

Quote:We seem to be engaged in special pleading with regard to free will-- only IT can be said to exist if it represents the mechanism of the physical universe as we know it, right down to the functions of QM particles.

Not sure if I'm reading this right - but, I think I'd agree.

I'm jumping into this conversation without scanning the prior 10 pages, so hopefully I won't repeat what has already been said. But basically Benny, I think you misrepresent what "real" is meant to imply even if our subjective experiences don't often, or even ever, fully ascertain it. Say for example we both walk outside our house and pass a dog. Those experiences will be entirely different in detail. You showered beforehand, I didn't, so the wind feels cooler to you, while I complain of the humidity. I owned a dog as a child so strong emotions of nostalgia overcome me, you're concerned only with getting to the theater before the show starts. Our brains pick up different signals, we ignore others, and our experience of reality in that moment may vastly differ.

None of this detracts from what is "real," or "objective." It only demonstrates the infinite possibilities that exist. Both are true accounts in their respects.

With regards to free will, I don't even understand what it would mean granted determinism or indeterminism. Either way, prior conditions change those in the present, of which we have no inherent freedom at any step because we did not control the steps that led to our current position, and we must keep moving forward regardless, almost blind to what happens next. What is a will? It is character. How does character develop? Through experience.

Okay, the dog, the Ferrari and "Mom" serve one point: that the world as we experience is not the world as we suppose it actually exists. However, in the human context, it doesn't MATTER that "Mom" is really a collection of QM particles doing a deterministic/indeterministic dance in space and time. Mom is real, because the criterion for reality in the human context is that I can see with my senses something which is coherent with the ideas I have about Mom. Whether we're in the Matrix, or a physical universe, or the Mind of God, or trapped in a jar in some mad scientist's lab has no effect on the reality of experiencing Mom.

The same goes for free will. It doesn't matter if the universe is deterministic or indeterministic, or if there is any mechanism for agency beyond the material. In the context of human existence, there are choices, and I make these choices as an expression of my personality, my memories, and my senses. The choice is imbued in every possible way with my existence. How I got my personality, my memories or my sense impressions, and exactly what they are in scientific terms, is irrelevant-- I have free will because my choices are an expression of my humanity.

-and that experience can be very real, while simultaneously very much in error, as can a great many other experiences. You're really going to need more than "I feel it". We know that you feel it - that's why we have something to talk about. We all have some experience but the particulars seem to be difficult to hammer out between us - and we still haven't seen any mechanism by which any free willing™ could be accomplished. Nor an unambiguous demonstration of any free will. I'm suggesting that a very real experience might be less than accurate regarding what is being experienced. We're hearing lions in the grass.

Observe free will? No, you can't observe it. It's a hypothesis. You can observe people claiming to have free will though. That's not the same thing.

You could only observe it if you could somehow replay the conditions of a "choice" again exactly, and to see if a different decision was made. And even if it was, you then have to determine how the choice is being made, be it random or whatever.

The thing is, what we think we experience as free will may just be quantum randomness. So whether or not you call it a "choice" depends on how you define it, and at what level.