Do you believe in free will?

[tackattack]

---

1. Both the actions of perception and cogitation do not require material reality to occur.

Yes they do.

Unless you believe we only have 5 material senses?

No, we've many more of those.

Thoughts, desires or mathematics are not a material reality. All factor in to many of my daily cogitations.

No, they are not material reality, but they cannot occur without a material medium

3a. Then please allow me to clarify. In the example person A knows objectively and reliably that they’re not acting “like themselves” (A prior). The person desires to return to A prior. Your statements indicate that there is no way for person A to move in the direction of and attain the same perspective once held by person A prior correct?

No. Firstly, don't equate A prior with "themselves". Secondly, the desire to return to A prior would be the cause and would determine the actions required for the return.

3b. In the instance I described he would have two images of self, the current and the desired.

Correct, but only the current one is his identity - not the desired one.

His desires result in an actionable change and is relevant.

But it is irrelevant to his perception of his current self.

The fact that he at one time was person A (even though it was an introduced corruption of his identity) but would hold no sway over future desires or decision by the new person. It would quintessentially be a memory of the self he didn’t want.

Ok.

J2. You never answered “Can you perceive something in any way other than the way you typically expect to perceive it?”

I did. No.

Also, just because something happened sometime that wasn’t in the now of the current timeline, doesn’t divorce it from affecting the causal chain.

Why would it? Its a part of the causal chain. Its effects are carried over down the line.

This is because the perception or cognition of something that has happened or could happen can factor into the though process. Projections, prediction, memories and conditioning even if 100% accurate and observed will still affect the physical though the causal chain.

No one is denying that. What is being denied is the atemporal nature of these projections, predictions, memories and conditioning,

4. I agree that the physical housing of memory itself is a part of current temporal reality. However the contents of that temporal reality (declarative memories) housed in physical reality (brain) when episodic are in essence illusory time travel sessions. It causes tinting of the now by what was. That to me signifies non-temporal, but we could very well be arguing semantics on this and I don’t realize it.

We are, but semantics are very important since incorrect semantics can lead to erroneous conclusions.

As you accept here, the episodic nature of these memories is illusory, i.e. the atemporal nature is not real. The fact that these happened in the past and are affecting the present is perfectly in line with the temporal nature of causation.

5. Ok so say for instance a particular fish has developed the ability to sense the electrical field produced by certain other fish through evolution. We don’t have that sense and can’t sense a fishes electrical field. It is a noumena to us. The lack of our perception of a noumena, does not negate the phenomena from occurring, just our realization of its occurrence.

The words noumenon and phenomenon are generally understood to describe the metaphysical nature of an object - referring to what cannot and can be known through the senses. In this case, the electric field is knowable through a sense (that of the fish). The absence of that sense in us does not change its nature from phenomenal to noumenal. So, no - its not noumena to us - unless you are defining noumena differently, in which case you should first specify it.

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.

As noted, I take objection with the use of the word noumena here as I consider desire, introspection, reasoning all to be part of the phenomenal. Apart from that, you are going correctly.

6- Objectively we would see one identity, that of a schizo. However, from each of the different personalities perspectives, they would each have their own identity correct?

The keywords being "from different perspectives". Identity does not depend on perspective. For example, disregard multiple personalities. Any single person is viewed through different perspectives by different people. His identity does not depend or change according to that perspective.

The question was to anyone then I guess, could you extrapolate what you mean by “the agent being a part of the cause precludes coercion”

Coercion refers to the action of causing a party to act against its own motivation. However, the action of coercion is assumed to be consistent with the will of the coercer. Now, if the coercer and the coerced are one and the same, you are essentially saying that it is the person's will to act against his will - a self-refuting position. Thus, my statement, that an agent being part of the cause precludes coercion

---

Renumbered for clarity
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.

---

Here’s a question to put your theory to the test. If you and I agree on what blue looks like does the object it’s describing that make someone else seeing it as gray any less real?

Blue can be measured in wavelengths of light. It can be objectively measured and defined as the property of light at a certain wavelength. How you perceive it is irrelevant, it is still blue, no matter how your brain interprets the signal. Any confusion on the matter is a physical flaw in perception, rather than the concept of blue.

I think you assume that causal determinism is a natural law, and that we’re trying to say we’re apart from those laws. I’m not saying that. I’m saying that part of who we are is our perception and desires. Those desires and perceptions are both outputs and inputs to the causal chain and if they can be shown to be altered, shows we have the ability to not be the sum of physiologically are determined to be.

Beautifully put, and clear. My current discussion with Genkaus (once we finish sniping over definitions) is based upon the concept that our ideas, motivations, plans, originate at a level beyond our perception, which are merely then justified.
An example of which would be the decision to ask someone to marry you. The underlying reasoning for this decision is largely hidden in complexities of conditioning and biological needs, and surrounded in metaphysical, but "unreal" concepts of love.
Sadly, I am not a neuroscientist, so I am willing to accept what the studies indicate. We may not be measuring the right thing, who knows.

Studies show that those who read a document stating determinism is a proven fact show the recipients act in a far less moral manner afterwards, which is why, early on in this thread, that while I believe my views, its best to simply not think about it too much! I don't want to be this way, I simply see no evidence to the contrary beyond private conviction, which I think anyone should be hesitant to trust implicitly.

Going back to your point, since I'm wandering, I do not divorce the psychological from the physiological. XKCD has a great little cartoon about it; http://xkcd.com/435/
In take it to extremes, in the long run, if we were more holistic and a million times more cognitively able, we probably wouldn't have a distinction between psychology and mathematics.

One thing I will say, is that I hope I'm wrong. Its awfully depressing, if true.

EDIT: Judging by the conversation above, this is quickly entering an level of discussion, I'm not too proud to admit goes beyond me. I think I may have to join Norfolk on the sidelines now!!

---

Don’t bow out now I rarely get a chance to talk like this with my coworkers and I’m enjoying the dialogue!
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?
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?