RE: If free will was not real
July 27, 2016 at 1:19 pm
(This post was last modified: July 27, 2016 at 1:30 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
In my case, that your experience of being in control of something...and even your actually -being- in control of something, would not demonstrate any free will. I'll give you some examples of why I think that, as I elaborate on those terms you mentioned.
1. The unmoved mover of mind would be that "x" which, not being forced by any causal factors, effects an action or change. Classical free will. This has so far eluded us.
2. Retconning is the act of retroactively revising the story of some event. As in we later remember that we thought/felt/did x, regardless of whether or not we actually did at the time of reference. A story about having free will, in context, rather than actually having it. We find this with some regularity.
3. An algorithm, again in context, being an architecture of nuerons that do x in response to y, ultimately resulting in higher order behaviors. This is the only theory of mind (and I assume that will, free or otherwise would be a part of our minds) for which we have any evidence, however tenuous a person may think that evidence is. It may ultimately be wrong, but it's possible.
So, stepping back out to a larger picture, defining ourselves a certain way...even the truth of that definition (for example..that you and the controller are the same) doesn't really speak to the issue of free will. If the control we have is 3, the act of 2 can give us the experience of 1...even in the absence of 1. This isn't to say that we don't have 1, classical free will, only that the experience of having it is not demonstrative of the truth of the contents of that experience. There's at least one sensible way...well evidenced, that the contents can be manufactured in absentia.
Now, we could propose that the y which nuerons do x in response to -is- 1, but we'd simply be assuming our conclusion, not demonstrating it. This too, then, is uninformative. Or that there is no 3, and no risk of 1 being 2.....which, in addition to assuming our conclusion denies a great deal of evidence to the contrary.
1. The unmoved mover of mind would be that "x" which, not being forced by any causal factors, effects an action or change. Classical free will. This has so far eluded us.
2. Retconning is the act of retroactively revising the story of some event. As in we later remember that we thought/felt/did x, regardless of whether or not we actually did at the time of reference. A story about having free will, in context, rather than actually having it. We find this with some regularity.
3. An algorithm, again in context, being an architecture of nuerons that do x in response to y, ultimately resulting in higher order behaviors. This is the only theory of mind (and I assume that will, free or otherwise would be a part of our minds) for which we have any evidence, however tenuous a person may think that evidence is. It may ultimately be wrong, but it's possible.
So, stepping back out to a larger picture, defining ourselves a certain way...even the truth of that definition (for example..that you and the controller are the same) doesn't really speak to the issue of free will. If the control we have is 3, the act of 2 can give us the experience of 1...even in the absence of 1. This isn't to say that we don't have 1, classical free will, only that the experience of having it is not demonstrative of the truth of the contents of that experience. There's at least one sensible way...well evidenced, that the contents can be manufactured in absentia.
Now, we could propose that the y which nuerons do x in response to -is- 1, but we'd simply be assuming our conclusion, not demonstrating it. This too, then, is uninformative. Or that there is no 3, and no risk of 1 being 2.....which, in addition to assuming our conclusion denies a great deal of evidence to the contrary.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
