RE: Do you believe in free will?
March 9, 2012 at 12:55 am
(This post was last modified: March 9, 2012 at 1:04 am by toro.)
Note: This is my interpretation of the world, I am simply trying to clarify my point of view.
Social norms are responsible for how we describe and conceptualize things. As these norms change, so do our conceptualizations. We think of ourselves as individual people living inside a head because that is how everyone else does and how we grew to understand it. We use the term "I", differentiate between singular and plural, past and present, objective vs. subjective, etc. because our society does. We assume we are "conscious", ascribe identity to things, and differentiate between "conscious" and "unconscious" existence because that is the current model of western society. That's all.
Entropy is responsible for our interpretation of time as moving. On a fundamental level reactions are all symmetric in time (there is no "forward or backward" on a basic level, hence time doesn't "pass"). Yet as entropy only increases, all the components in chemical reactions have a tendency to statistically be at lowest energy at points further in time. Hence, organisms, which are composed of large constantly reacting chemical structures have evolved to innately interpret the the world following this chemical increase, as it makes it easier to organize themselves to gain more energy and survive: time doesn't move forward, we organize thoughts/predictions/actions according to the change in entropy to see it as doing such.
(Sorry that took so long, but it's difficult to conceptualize)
Only if they were in the identical situation. That would of course require them to be that person, otherwise something is different. Given how complicated and inter-connected human decision-making is with the body and the physical and social environment, you couldn't feasibly test that other than on a statistical level.
All such tests being done seem to be contradicting that statement. Not only is "conscious" decision making predictable statistically, but it is actually externally controllable on an individual level.
Agreed. QM consciousness is a stop-gap that doesn't add anything new. Everyone uses quantum "randomness" for this purpose: spiritualists, fundamentalists, scientists (professional, Christian, and -ologists*). Furthermore, "randomness" is only one of many QM interpretations. Uncertainty is the real fundamental property, and that simply is a limit of obtainable information/definition, just as the speed of light. Odds are they actually are the same thing describing the inverse of one another (toro's opinion). It doesn't mean things are "random", it means there is a limit to how well a system can be defined. If you define your system as being probability, that translates into "randomness" because you have defined your metaphysics as such.
*that was a joke.
(March 6, 2012 at 11:16 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Could you please elaborate on that? It sounds interesting and I want to understand more about how you see consciousness being confused with social norms, etc.
Social norms are responsible for how we describe and conceptualize things. As these norms change, so do our conceptualizations. We think of ourselves as individual people living inside a head because that is how everyone else does and how we grew to understand it. We use the term "I", differentiate between singular and plural, past and present, objective vs. subjective, etc. because our society does. We assume we are "conscious", ascribe identity to things, and differentiate between "conscious" and "unconscious" existence because that is the current model of western society. That's all.
(March 7, 2012 at 12:24 am)AthiestAtheist Wrote: What the hell does entropy have to do with this? Are you just using fancy words to try to make yourself seem smart?
Entropy is responsible for our interpretation of time as moving. On a fundamental level reactions are all symmetric in time (there is no "forward or backward" on a basic level, hence time doesn't "pass"). Yet as entropy only increases, all the components in chemical reactions have a tendency to statistically be at lowest energy at points further in time. Hence, organisms, which are composed of large constantly reacting chemical structures have evolved to innately interpret the the world following this chemical increase, as it makes it easier to organize themselves to gain more energy and survive: time doesn't move forward, we organize thoughts/predictions/actions according to the change in entropy to see it as doing such.
(Sorry that took so long, but it's difficult to conceptualize)
(March 7, 2012 at 5:35 am)Zen Badger Wrote: If there were no free will they would be constrained to make the same choice as the others.
Only if they were in the identical situation. That would of course require them to be that person, otherwise something is different. Given how complicated and inter-connected human decision-making is with the body and the physical and social environment, you couldn't feasibly test that other than on a statistical level.
All such tests being done seem to be contradicting that statement. Not only is "conscious" decision making predictable statistically, but it is actually externally controllable on an individual level.
(March 8, 2012 at 8:07 pm)Chuck Wrote: Even if quantum uncertainty does effect will, it merely make the will theoretically unpredictable to an accuracy finer than a certain boundary. It does not make the will free, any more than a truly unpredictable dice having any free will. Quantum consciousness is an obfuscation that doesn't even address the charge.
Agreed. QM consciousness is a stop-gap that doesn't add anything new. Everyone uses quantum "randomness" for this purpose: spiritualists, fundamentalists, scientists (professional, Christian, and -ologists*). Furthermore, "randomness" is only one of many QM interpretations. Uncertainty is the real fundamental property, and that simply is a limit of obtainable information/definition, just as the speed of light. Odds are they actually are the same thing describing the inverse of one another (toro's opinion). It doesn't mean things are "random", it means there is a limit to how well a system can be defined. If you define your system as being probability, that translates into "randomness" because you have defined your metaphysics as such.
*that was a joke.
