Do you believe in free will?

[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.