Why you don't really have free will

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
24,182
If self-awareness is a simple analysis of state, it's not all that difficult :) You have state and then you have analysis, two systems making "You" a thing. "What I am", or "me", is like a variable or multitude of variables derived by the senses. You wouldn't be aware if you had no senses. Why it's a particularly strong sensation or relevant in humans is due to the social component. Self-awareness is useless without social structure. I admit this is all just pure theory on my part. How does one even begin to prove any of this :/ where does one even start :/ Makes logical sense, seems plausible, to me, but that's about all I can offer.

Water is a heavier compound, in liquid state, at room temperature than H and O on their own. I know what you mean, but it doesn't seem analogous to the above.
Except we know it's not. It's not how it functions that is the issue but why it can function in the first place. And awareness and consciousness are two different things. You can explain consciousness in physical terms. A computer is technically conscious if you use that definition. An ant is conscious but is it aware? For all we know it's really just a biological computer on legs.

You have to go further than that to explain awareness and self-awareness. How can something be aware if it's not a physical property of the universe like force, momentum, gravity etc.?
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
24,182
I think we first need to define what exactly @Swa means when he says, "fundamental properties of the universe". Swa can you define that?
It's simple, what makes it tick? Or rather how can it tick at all? How can two oppositely charged particles attract each other? How can lightning just know which route is the easiest one to take without trying them all?

It's easy to describe the functional state of a computer. We can fall back on physical properties. But you can't do that when describing the function of physical properties. Science has done nothing to answer the fundamentals and has only dug the well deeper. But just because it's an impossibility for science doesn't mean it is for philosophy as well.
 

Ponderer

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
3,471
It's simple, what makes it tick? Or rather how can it tick at all? How can two oppositely charged particles attract each other? How can lightning just know which route is the easiest one to take without trying them all?

It's easy to describe the functional state of a computer. We can fall back on physical properties. But you can't do that when describing the function of physical properties. Science has done nothing to answer the fundamentals and has only dug the well deeper. But just because it's an impossibility for science doesn't mean it is for philosophy as well.
You are being trolled.
Me thinks that Prawnapple only pretends to be so stupid.
I could be wrong though.

<edit>
He's a sneaky one.
It is for example known that he used another account to try and champion one of his agenda's.
I wonder how many other accounts he has/uses.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Swa

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
7,042
And awareness and consciousness are two different things...
They're often used interchangeably, particularly "self"-awareness and consciousness. But let's assume you are correct and that there's a distinction between simple awareness and consciousness, I think I can then go a bit further...

Good cannot exist without evil.
Pain cannot exist without pleasure.
Absence cannot exist without presence.
Everything appears to be associative. Association is key.
Awareness is the experience of association.
Consciousness is the awareness of self.
Therefore the statement that consciousness is an analysis of state might still be valid. And therefore can be performed by a computer if set up correctly.

I'm just having fun with the concepts hoping to find something useful, I'm not really posing an argument.

In my retirement one day maybe I will take up an AI related hobby with this philosophy in mind :p
 
Last edited:

Prawnapple

Expert Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
1,990
How can two oppositely charged particles attract each other?
You would probably be better off asking a physicist that question.

How can lightning just know which route is the easiest one to take without trying them all?
Easy, just google it.

Science has done nothing to answer the fundamentals and has only dug the well deeper
The well needs to be dug deeper.

But just because it's an impossibility for science doesn't mean it is for philosophy as well.
lol, the race is on then, I guess.
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
7,042
You just carry on with your materialist beliefs about truth :thumbsup: .
That is correct. It is "my" beliefs because all I have is subjective experience :) Without the senses my awareness ceases to exist. So, as subjective and prone to error as it is, it's my only method of discovery. It's all I got. Generally accepted scientific method expands on that idea to offer peer review and falsifiability, so it is a little better, but it is still all we have.

If there's is no experimentation or observation that will find the fundamental truth you speak of then we will simply never know the truth. We cannot. But I wonder how does that lend credence to assuming the truth, i.e. faith? And how does one proposition of faith become worth more than any other? Bit of a difficult thing to figure out.

You can imagine my reaction when someone comes at me with a completely assumed truth :laugh:

I tend to favor materialism out of habit and sensory dependency, but I don't assume it to be absolutely true - just useful. It's all I got. And perhaps we don't need to know the whole truth in order to flourish? We just need to know what's useful or relevant to us. Randomness could be out there, but gravity is down here - my senses can't ignore it.
 
Last edited:

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
12,735
That is correct. It is "my" beliefs because all I have is subjective experience :) Without the senses my awareness ceases to exist. So, as subjective and prone to error as it is, it's my only method of discovery. It's all I got. Generally accepted scientific method expands on that idea to offer peer review and falsifiability, so it is a little better, but it is still all we have.

If there's is no experimentation or observation that will find the fundamental truth you speak of then we will simply never know the truth. We cannot. But I wonder how does that lend credence to assuming the truth, i.e. faith? And how does one proposition of faith become worth more than any other? Bit of a difficult thing to figure out.

You can imagine my reaction when someone comes at me with a completely assumed truth :laugh:

I tend to favor materialism out of habit and sensory dependency, but I don't assume it to be absolutely true - just useful. It's all I got. And perhaps we don't need to know the whole truth in order to flourish? We just need to know what's useful or relevant to us. Randomness could be out there, but gravity is down here - my senses can't ignore it.
An intelligent, good and consistent materialist would just stop worrying about truth, reason, logic, observations and all the rest of these teleological phenomena.
 

Prawnapple

Expert Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
1,990
An intelligent, good and consistent materialist would just stop worrying about truth, reason, logic, observations and all the rest of these teleological phenomena.
But we don't want you guys out and about, trolling people too hard with this sort of thing, either ;P
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
24,182
You would probably be better off asking a physicist that question.
I don't have to, it's something they're unable to answer. But I bet you know this.

Easy, just google it.
Another one for which there is no answer.

The well needs to be dug deeper.
Well let me enlighten you a bit here. It doesn't matter how deep you dig because at some point you just reach a point where there's nothing below and things just work because that's how they work.
 

Prawnapple

Expert Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
1,990
I don't have to, it's something they're unable to answer. But I bet you know this.
I think I hear what you're saying, but I don't think it's as simple as "unable to answer". There's likely a very many answers, some way more plausible than others.

Another one for which there is no answer.

For any discharge in the air the molecules of the air must be ionized. This ionization happens during thunderstorms because of the high static electric fields carried by the clouds which generate "streamers", i.e. paths for the electrons to flow downwards. Corresponding streamers are formed by conductors and high points on the ground with positive charge again generated by the high fields of the storm cloud, the positive ions flow upward and the path for a discharge is set.

Amongst other things, as per wiki above.
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
24,182
I think I hear what you're saying, but I don't think it's as simple as "unable to answer". There's likely a very many answers, some way more plausible than others.
Actually there's none because as I said at some fundamental level things just work the way they do.


For any discharge in the air the molecules of the air must be ionized. This ionization happens during thunderstorms because of the high static electric fields carried by the clouds which generate "streamers", i.e. paths for the electrons to flow downwards. Corresponding streamers are formed by conductors and high points on the ground with positive charge again generated by the high fields of the storm cloud, the positive ions flow upward and the path for a discharge is set.
Does not answer the problem.
 

Prawnapple

Expert Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
1,990
Actually there's none because as I said at some fundamental level things just work the way they do.
Doesn't mean we won't figure that out eventually, and also isn't contingent on whether we have any free will.

Does not answer the problem.
What's left to answer? That explains perfectly how lightning knows which way to travel.
 

Moto Guzzi

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2004
Messages
930
This was wonderfully interesting.
Why you don't really have free will


Continued...
In short, you because of your abstract brain/mind unlike animals are basicly caught up in one big enormous Suggestive Trend. Your brain absorb Suggestive Trends like a sponge. The 1st person to suggest Money as a medium to flow resources, probably realised this, but never talked about it freely, so generations were born into this, some die never realising it. Every abstract structure you find yourself in, is based on this, some Good, some Evil.

The big question of all unanswered questions today is ...How on earth did we and when received this type of a brain capability in history-? .Over all the years the animal has not evolved to living in high level codes. We have low levlel and abstract level functioning, animals only low level. Our budgy can talk, but he has no clue what hes saying.


...Mars now with good photos emerging starts to look where the earth is heading.
 
Last edited:

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
12,735
It's simple, what makes it tick? Or rather how can it tick at all? How can two oppositely charged particles attract each other? How can lightning just know which route is the easiest one to take without trying them all?

It's easy to describe the functional state of a computer. We can fall back on physical properties. But you can't do that when describing the function of physical properties. Science has done nothing to answer the fundamentals and has only dug the well deeper. But just because it's an impossibility for science doesn't mean it is for philosophy as well.
Every agent acts toward an end.
The ends of agents are derived from what kind of thing the agent is i.e. its nature.
Empirical science helps unravel the nature of things by studying their ends.

All of this is anathema to materialists.
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
24,182
Doesn't mean we won't figure that out eventually, and also isn't contingent on whether we have any free will.
Nope. Take the example of the electron and proton again. On some level there's an exchange of information and we can actually see this taking place at the speed of light. So suppose we discover this so-called silver thread that makes them recognise each other and the direction they need to travel. Then we're sitting with the problem of what makes this mechanism function. There is no bottom. If there is one it's one that can't be explained and just works.

This is a difference of philosophies. As Techne says science starts at the end, examining from the top of how things work if you will. What you don't understand is that it will never reach the "bottom" of the pyramid because it doesn't start at the bottom. It is your philosophy that is the problem here.

What's left to answer? That explains perfectly how lightning knows which way to travel.
It doesn't. I think you just don't understand the question.
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
7,042
Every agent acts toward an end.
The ends of agents are derived from what kind of thing the agent is i.e. its nature.
Empirical science helps unravel the nature of things by studying their ends.

All of this is anathema to materialists.
Bit of a double-edged sword actually. Gotta study the cause of something while not being too invested in the causality of all things :laugh:

Sometimes I just accept that life makes no bloody sense whatsoever :sneaky:
 

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
12,735
Bit of a double-edged sword actually. Gotta study the cause of something while not being too invested in the causality of all things :laugh:

Sometimes I just accept that life makes no bloody sense whatsoever :sneaky:
The right attitude for materialists is "if anything makes sense it is a bloody miracle".
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
7,042
The right attitude for materialists is "if anything makes sense it is a bloody miracle".
I feel this is the problem that literally everyone must face when they try to sense order in the world. Not just "materialists". To try plug that gap, people might start believing in things like God or spiritual stuff. But that also just seems like an exercise in absurdity. A dart board that shouldn't be questioned all that much.

Bottom line, there is no ideology that makes total sense. Some might be just more useful than others under certian circumstances. Else we'd all be on that train and people like me wouldn't be desperately trying to find it.

When I say life makes no bloody sense, I'm 100% convinced that is true for you as well. Call it pessimism but I think it is true for everybody :( Else, please tell me your secret.

Maybe the secret isn't to think too much about it. Meh... it comes back to that double edged sword. The sword that says subjective truth might lead us astray from objective truth. Tree of knowledge problem? :D Damn snake and his scandalous apples! :laugh:
 
Last edited:

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
12,735
I feel this is the problem that literally everyone must face when they try to sense order in the world. Not just "materialists". To try plug that gap, people might start believing in things like God or spiritual stuff. But that also just seems like an exercise in absurdity. A dart board that shouldn't be questioned all that much.

Bottom line, there is no ideology that makes total sense. Some might be just more useful than others under certian circumstances. Else we'd all be on that train and people like me wouldn't be desperately trying to find it.

When I say life makes no bloody sense, I'm 100% convinced that is true for you as well. Call it pessimism but I think it is true for everybody :( Else, please tell me your secret.

Maybe the secret isn't to think too much about it. Meh... it comes back to that double edged sword. The sword that says subjective truth might lead us astray from objective truth. Tree of knowledge problem? :D Damn snake and his scandalous apples! :laugh:
Your partial pessimism is only partially consistent with materialism. You are not pessimistic enough. It should be total pessimism you are striving for with no hope of ever understanding anything. And you shouldn't project this total pessimism on those that reject materialism.
 
Top