Is free will real?

[bennyboy]

As real as any other imaginary thing.

Right. Like beauty, love, and meaning.

---

Oh IDK....while hard determinism is difficult to escape, I wouldn't go so far as to consider that support for our traditional concept of a "sealed fate".

Why not? If there's no agency, in which free-willed entities can alter the course of events, then why wouldn't you see all events as inevitable?

[The Grand Nudger]

Right. Like beauty, love, and meaning.

Sure.

Why not? If there's no agency, in which free-willed entities can alter the course of events, then why wouldn't you see all events as inevitable?

Our concept of fate is not simply that which is inevitable. It is that which is ordained. It's an issue of baggage. Also, simply because -we- might have no agency that doesn't mean that any given thing would be inevitable.

[bennyboy]

Free will is like an imaginary MC Escher painting, depicting a series of different sized escalators zigzagging past one another, above, below, to the right and left; your metaphysical homunculus is always traveling on one, and continually being nudged by millions of microscopic imps to jump off whatever escalator he is on, onto another that is passing by. He just doesn't realize he's being nudged.

Okay, here's the elephant in the room.

You've identified both free-will and the "homunculus" of self as illusory. But why, knowing these things to be illusory, do you continue to act as though you have free will? How, in any non-forum-debate context, does this knowledge inform or guide your decision-making, your social relationships, etc? Why, for example, don't you study Buddhism or Hinduism, some schools of which share the same philosophy, but apply it in more depth?

Or. . . wait a minute. . . you're not turning into a closet Buddhist are you?

[The Grand Nudger]

In a computational system - some assumptions are useful for doing work...even if they aren't accurate to any exterior standard - and especially when there is no requirement that they be accurate. As human beings, we find ourselves in both positions (particularly with regards to a wide range of concepts like love, beauty, free will etc). If we were computational systems, it would be trivially to explain the persistence of an "inaccurate" assumption. Not much of an elephant to me - but the manner in which we attempt to explain this (and things on the periphery) is so different that we're bound to run into things that would be a problem for one manner of explanation that are not for another.

However, could such knowledge guide our "decision-making"? Sure. It could, just as one example, provide the metrics by which a reasonable expectation of success in rehabilitation is achieved. If we're essentially "programmed items" - then knowledge of how and by what would be immensely useful (and already seems to be useful to us....with what little we know).

[Mudhammam]

Okay, here's the elephant in the room.

You've identified both free-will and the "homunculus" of self as illusory. But why, knowing these things to be illusory, do you continue to act as though you have free will? How, in any non-forum-debate context, does this knowledge inform or guide your decision-making, your social relationships, etc? Why, for example, don't you study Buddhism or Hinduism, some schools of which share the same philosophy, but apply it in more depth?

Or. . . wait a minute. . . you're not turning into a closet Buddhist are you?

I don't act as though I have free will. I'm quite aware that each thought that pops into my brain is subsequent to a chain that I do not in any sense control, that senses fluctuate and internal changes prompt me this way or that. I'm not under the illusion. But I can distinguish my freedom in the sense of being able to sit and type out this message as opposed to a hot supermodel pointing a gun at my head and telling me to strip naked.

[bennyboy]

Okay, here's the elephant in the room.

You've identified both free-will and the "homunculus" of self as illusory. But why, knowing these things to be illusory, do you continue to act as though you have free will? How, in any non-forum-debate context, does this knowledge inform or guide your decision-making, your social relationships, etc? Why, for example, don't you study Buddhism or Hinduism, some schools of which share the same philosophy, but apply it in more depth?

Or. . . wait a minute. . . you're not turning into a closet Buddhist are you?

I don't act as though I have free will. I'm quite aware that each thought that pops into my brain is subsequent to a chain that I do not in any sense control, that senses fluctuate and internal changes prompt me this way or that. I'm not under the illusion. But I can distinguish my freedom in the sense of being able to sit and type out this message as opposed to a hot supermodel pointing a gun at my head and telling me to strip naked.

Okay, so you woke up, you had breakfast, you thought to yourself, "What will I do next?" Your (determinate) thinking mechanism weighed the balance and caused you to log in to the internet, open AF, navigate to a thread about free will, and compelled you to come and write a response to my post. You spent several minutes watching yourself construct and organize sentences, and then pressed the "Post Reply" button.

And you think all this is a simpler, more meaningful explanation for your behaviors than free will?

Anyway about the Buddhism, it sounds like you are engaged in the practice known as "watching the watcher," where you start observing that little homonculus and realize that it's an idea, rather than a thing. Avoiding Buddhist philosophy because of religious stigma will mean you miss out on some of the philosophy of mind that is most closely related to your philosophical position.

---

However, could such knowledge guide our "decision-making"? Sure. It could, just as one example, provide the metrics by which a reasonable expectation of success in rehabilitation is achieved. If we're essentially "programmed items" - then knowledge of how and by what would be immensely useful (and already seems to be useful to us....with what little we know).

Useful for what? If the self is an illusion, then all the utility that contributes to the development, sustenance and pleasure of the self is pixie dust.

[IATIA]

... If the self is an illusion, then all the utility that contributes to the development, sustenance and pleasure of the self is pixie dust.

Yes. And your point is?

[Mudhammam]

And you think all this is a simpler, more meaningful explanation for your behaviors than free will?

No, it's not simpler, but it is more meaningful, and correct.

Anyway about the Buddhism, it sounds like you are engaged in the practice known as "watching the watcher," where you start observing that little homonculus and realize that it's an idea, rather than a thing. Avoiding Buddhist philosophy because of religious stigma will mean you miss out on some of the philosophy of mind that is most closely related to your philosophical position.

I don't avoid any ideas. I just finished reading Theologica Germanica, a 14th century work written by an anonymous Christian mystic. One of the main goals of mysticism is freedom and transformation from what is vulgarly understood as the "self."

[The Grand Nudger]

Useful for what?

Predicting human behavior and the utilitarian benefits thereof (transportation, productivity, conflict resolution, etc). But also, finding dinner.

If the self is an illusion, then all the utility that contributes to the development, sustenance and pleasure of the self is pixie dust.

I suppose that depends on what you think "self" is or does, huh? Is there ever going to be a point at which free will is explained on it's own merits, rather than as a hostage negotiation? Pretty sure that angle was covered pages ago (Rasetsu!)?

[bennyboy]

... If the self is an illusion, then all the utility that contributes to the development, sustenance and pleasure of the self is pixie dust.

Yes. And your point is?

It's irrational to act on motivations once you've identified them as pixie dust.

---

Predicting human behavior and the utilitarian benefits thereof (transportation, productivity, conflict resolution, etc). But also, finding dinner.

Finding dinner for whom? The illusion of the self?

---

I don't avoid any ideas. I just finished reading Theologica Germanica, a 14th century work written by an anonymous Christian mystic. One of the main goals of mysticism is freedom and transformation from what is vulgarly understood as the "self."

We talked about that once upon a time. I was saying that at the border conditions, it's hard to tell the difference between polar opposites: mind vs. matter, for example.

In this case, I think science is kind of arriving at places spiritual traditions reached a long time ago-- and using many of the same philosophical arguments. The difference is that the science provides some evidence that aspects of reality are well-aligned with those philosophical outlooks.

I too think there's much delusion in mundane life, and much liberty and wisdom in deconstruction of the sense of self. However, I think the selective removal of the idea of free will, WITHOUT also removing most of the ideas about self, is pointless.

Free will is as real as the sense of self.