Is free will real?

[bennyboy]

A flat object is a sensible notion that reflects a definite attribute of objects in the real world.

Really? Here I was, thinking the universe is made up of nothing but tiny little particle/waves vibrating in space. It seems to me that in order to perceive a flat surface, one must take literal physical reality (the collection of particles, none of which are flat, and no combination of which are flat), and imbue it with ideas. And what are these "objects" of which you speak? Those illusions by which I interact with an infinite sea of QM particles?

---

Just for starters, people are "subject to the demands of instinct", hunger, survival, sexual drive. Do whales, dolphins and apes have a world view? How about cats, dogs, parrots and ravens?

Yes they are subject to those things. But they also have the capacity to act contrary to those instincts.

I do not know which non-human animals have a world view.

[The Grand Nudger]

Is there some conflict between a flat surface and things being made out of particles that the world is unaware of? "Flat" simply refers to a particular arrangement of particles that we are capable of observing. A tabletop doesn't need me to imbue it with anything to be flat, it's just a description, not an incantation. It's an accurate description too, and so is yours. Tabletops are flat...and made out of particles. On that last point, our eyes are insufficient observation equipment. While we can perceive the one with our native set...the other requires assistance. Neither are wrong - but neither depend on anything being imbued - by us, to the table. You keep discussing what we do with the idea of something and then using that to comment on those things that the ideas -refer to-. We can imbue the -idea- of something with a bunch of things. Imbuing -the thing- to which our ideas refer is a little more difficult.

(LOL, You mooter! )

[robvalue]

From now on, everything is flat! It's simpler! I don't want details.

[The Grand Nudger]

Here here!. Fine detail (while fantastic for leisurely viewing) may not be as useful as we think. Economy of data is going to give us diminishing returns for increasing levels of detail - in principle. I have to add something continuing on the last post. Try the language of "imbuing" something with mites or germs. We can't see them either (with the naked eye). Does that mean that we are imbuing the air with "no mites, no germs"? Does that have some effect that we could point to? If I look through a microscope...am I them imbuing the air "with mites and germs"? How about an effect for that?

(obviously, I think this "imbuing" business is a deepity - but I'm open to the notion. I also think that our thoughts have an effect -on something-....just not on the status of the arrangement of particles in a tabletop and how we might observe a spatial relationship. Perhaps if we had a finer level of granularity we would describe the table some other way, use a different word or even concept to describe it - but we would still be able to observe the arrangement that we now call "flat". Our thoughts and ideas seem to be able to change our thoughts and ideas, perhaps they can change what observations we recognize (even if they don;t make our eyes "stop seeing" some specific thing)....but in none of that, it seems, is the table itself changed......)

[IATIA]

Just for starters, people are "subject to the demands of instinct", hunger, survival, sexual drive. Do whales, dolphins and apes have a world view? How about cats, dogs, parrots and ravens?

Yes they are subject to those things. But they also have the capacity to act contrary to those instincts.

I do not know which non-human animals have a world view.

The point of this thread is evaluating whether or not we do have that ability.

[Mudhammam]

Really? Here I was, thinking the universe is made up of nothing but tiny little particle/waves vibrating in space. It seems to me that in order to perceive a flat surface, one must take literal physical reality (the collection of particles, none of which are flat, and no combination of which are flat), and imbue it with ideas. And what are these "objects" of which you speak? Those illusions by which I interact with an infinite sea of QM particles?

Is there some conflict between a flat surface and things being made out of particles that the world is unaware of? "Flat" simply refers to a particular arrangement of particles that we are capable of observing. A tabletop doesn't need me to imbue it with anything to be flat, it's just a description, not an incantation. It's an accurate description too, and so is yours. Tabletops are flat...and made out of particles. On that last point, our eyes are insufficient observation equipment. While we can perceive the one with our native set...the other requires assistance. Neither are wrong - but neither depend on anything being imbued - by us, to the table. You keep discussing what we do with the idea of something and then using that to comment on those things that the ideas -refer to-. We can imbue the -idea- of something with a bunch of things. Imbuing -the thing- to which our ideas refer is a little more difficult.


(LOL, You mooter! )

Exactly. There's no conflict in describing objects by their fundamental constituents, on the one hand, and the appearances they take in "Macro-world" on account of their configurations.

"one must take literal physical reality... and imbue it with ideas."

So what? Our ideas (should) strive to define reality, intellectually, not create what isn't actually there. If I tell you to place the cup on the flat surface, I'm distinguishing a definite property of an object (such as a table) a) on a large scale form that particles and forces comprise to make, and b) as it is distinctly perceived from other surface properties, such as rough, wavy, curved, etc. ones. Once again, free will does not share even this utilitarian benefit when the concept is examined but for a moment, and human freedom, while it is like a flat surface in the sense of b), is not the case in the sense of a).

"And what are these "objects" of which you speak? Those illusions by which I interact with an infinite sea of QM particles?"

Illusions, no. There is an infinite sea of QM particles that interact with each other, due to physical laws, and evolve, in some instances into larger and larger objects that, also due to physical laws interact with each other such as in having this conversation.

[bennyboy]

Here here!. Fine detail (while fantastic for leisurely viewing) may not be as useful as we think.

Wait a minute, now. We're not talking about utility. We're talking about what things get to be called "real" and what things are just ideas.

(obviously, I think this "imbuing" business is a deepity - but I'm open to the notion. I also think that our thoughts have an effect -on something-....just not on the status of the arrangement of particles in a tabletop and how we might observe a spatial relationship. Perhaps if we had a finer level of granularity we would describe the table some other way, use a different word or even concept to describe it - but we would still be able to observe the arrangement that we now call "flat". Our thoughts and ideas seem to be able to change our thoughts and ideas, perhaps they can change what observations we recognize (even if they don;t make our eyes "stop seeing" some specific thing)....but in none of that, it seems, is the table itself changed......)

Again, you're talking about all the things I consider both real and useful-- in the human context. The same goes for free will-- I experience my free will all the time, and exercise it constantly.

The question is whether the human experience of "X" is sufficient for us to say "X" is real. To me, you guys are special pleading:
-a table doesn't exist in space as we experience it, but it's definitely real
-free will doesn't exist in space and time as we experience it, so it's definitely not real

---

Exactly. There's no conflict in describing objects by their fundamental constituents, on the one hand, and the appearances they take in "Macro-world" on account of their configurations.

"one must take literal physical reality... and imbue it with ideas."

So what? Our ideas (should) strive to define reality, intellectually, not create what isn't actually there. If I tell you to place the cup on the flat surface, I'm distinguishing a definite property of an object (such as a table) a) on a large scale form that particles and forces comprise to make, and b) as it is distinctly perceived from other surface properties, such as rough, wavy, curved, etc. ones. Once again, free will does not share even this utilitarian benefit when the concept is examined but for a moment, and human freedom, while it is like a flat surface in the sense of b), is not the case in the sense of a).

"And what are these "objects" of which you speak? Those illusions by which I interact with an infinite sea of QM particles?"

Illusions, no. There is an infinite sea of QM particles that interact with each other, due to physical laws, and evolve, in some instances into larger and larger objects that, also due to physical laws interact with each other such as in having this conversation.

Your passion in arguing for the existence of table-tops is pursuasive. You have not, however, told me whether you think any of the abstractions which define human exprience should be considered real. What about love, beauty, value and meaning? Are they real, or just illusions? And if they are illusions, should we not seek to dismiss them from consideration in living our lives? But wait. . . doesn't "should" itself imply free will? Does that mean that I'm deterministically bound to consider thinking that love, beauty, value and meaning have. . . meaning? Urk!

---

The point of this thread is evaluating whether or not we do have that ability.

I'm still in the process of establishing which of our real-seeming experiences we get to call real, and which of our real-seeming experiences must be discarded as illusion. These philosophical lines in the sand seem to be blown as much by whim as by logic. Must. . . investigate. . . further. *imagines self in Star Trek, investigating strange foreign desert*

I can say, however, that I've definitely had the experience that is called "free will." Now we have the task of deciding whether to throw the experience, the label, and its philosophical implications out the window because none of it fits into the science of the day.

[The Grand Nudger]

Wait a minute, now. We're not talking about utility. We're talking about what things get to be called "real" and what things are just ideas.

sidebar, sidebar.

Again, you're talking about all the things I consider both real and useful-- in the human context. The same goes for free will-- I experience my free will all the time, and exercise it constantly.

You/we also experience rabbits coming out of hats and cold poles.

The question is whether the human experience of "X" is sufficient for us to say "X" is real. To me, you guys are special pleading:
-a table doesn't exist in space as we experience it, but it's definitely real
-free will doesn't exist in space and time as we experience it, so it's definitely not real

The reality of the experience isn't anything I'd contest. It's the accuracy of the contents I have doubts about, as I've repeatedly said. If free will were a table then we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we? Since it isn't....I don't expect what might hold for a table to also hold for free will.

(The table is, as far as our sensory equipment can tell, flat. At our level of interaction - it is-. At some other level of interaction requiring some other set of senses or augmentations our experience ceases to be -as accurate-. At no point down this rabbit hole does the table become any less flat - because all flat is meant to convey is a particular arrangement at a particular level of interaction - and that's all that it could convey. Regardless, if you see the table as a collection of particles or as a flat surface - this won't have any effect on the table.)

[Mudhammam]

Your passion in arguing for the existence of table-tops is pursuasive.

You have not, however, told me whether you think any of the abstractions which define human exprience should be considered real. What about love, beauty, value and meaning? Are they real, or just illusions?

Yes, they are real because they correlate to real phenomena in which our beings experience fluctuating physical states and term any slightest difference under concepts such as love, beauty, value, etc. This is, of course, due in large part to memories, that is, a capacity to look backwards into the past and forwards into the future, following "mental signposts" (sticking out from the "dirt" of biochemical processes) that guide us in our immediate environment.

And if they are illusions, should we not seek to dismiss them from consideration in living our lives? But wait. . . doesn't "should" itself imply free will? Does that mean that I'm deterministically bound to consider thinking that love, beauty, value and meaning have. . . meaning? Urk!

You are deterministically bound to the extent that you find the strongest reason affecting your disposition towards one or the other... hopefully one of those determinants is this post.

[bennyboy]

You/we also experience rabbits coming out of hats and cold poles.

Adding more doubt to non-free-will experiences serves well to justify my stance that nothing we experience is intrinsically more real than free will.

(The table is, as far as our sensory equipment can tell, flat. At our level of interaction - it is-. At some other level of interaction requiring some other set of senses or augmentations our experience ceases to be -as accurate-. At no point down this rabbit hole does the table become any less flat - because all flat is meant to convey is a particular arrangement at a particular level of interaction - and that's all that it could convey. Regardless, if you see the table as a collection of particles or as a flat surface - this won't have any effect on the table.)

And over the past few days, as we've discussed free will, I can say that viewing it as deterministic, indeterministic, or illusory has not affected my snack-aisle experience of freely choosing what I'm going to buy, or of freely choosing my method of hiding said purchase from my wife.

---

Yes, they are real because they correlate to real phenomena in which our beings experience fluctuating physical states and term any slightest difference under concepts such as love, beauty, value, etc. This is, of course, due in large part to memories, that is, a capacity to look backwards into the past and forwards into the future, following "mental signposts" (sticking out from the "dirt" of biochemical processes) that guide us in our immediate environment.

Okay, so let me ask you this. Say you see a beautiful sunset. Does knowing that it isn't intrinsically beautiful, but that it is an instinctive emotional response to certain visual stimulus that makes us "see" beauty in it, not make that beauty unreal?

Or will you accept that "real for us" is no less real than the light itself?

And if they are illusions, should we not seek to dismiss them from consideration in living our lives? But wait. . . doesn't "should" itself imply free will? Does that mean that I'm deterministically bound to consider thinking that love, beauty, value and meaning have. . . meaning? Urk!

You are deterministically bound to the extent that you find the strongest reason affecting your disposition towards one or the other... hopefully one of those determinants is this post.

lol we all know the likelihood of that!