My thoughts on free will

[matthewsquires]

I was thinking about this a lot, and it started really making sense to me, but i don't know how clear I can be about it, so if you have questions or don't feel like it rings true, i'll argue for it or expand on it or whatever.  maybe some people already have this view on things, but i didn't 'til recently


Free will exists, but the choices a person will make are casually determined.  When thinking about choices, it is important to remember that people do not choose their choices.  For example, if a man is asked a question on the street, he suddenly is given the choice to answer the question or ignore it.  He did not ask for that choice, it presented itself to him through a casual chain of events.  Similarly, a man does not choose freely, but is determined by every thing that has transpired before the moment of choice. 

You can not have a moment of life experienced without making a choice.  Conscious life without choice does not exist.  Even if someone decided to kill themselves, in an attempt to stop making choices, they would still be choosing to not make choices in the future.   And after they were dead, their lack of choosing would be a result of not existing, so it is correct they wouldn't be choosing, but they also wouldn't be not choosing, because there would be no choice presented to them to not choose.

[LMNO]

I'm not sure "casual" is the right word to use.

[Template]

CAUSAL
OF CAUSE
ENGAGING IN CAUSE
COMPRISING CAUSE
THINGS THAT CAUSE OTHER THINGS

THE MORE YOU KNOW

[Captain Utopia]

You seem to be arguing that free will doesn't exist, but a very convincing illusion exists in its place - determined by the chain of experiences an individual has been exposed to? I've noticed that people who believe they have a 'soul', seem to be those who cling to the concept of "free will" the strongest. Otherwise, what is the point of having a 'soul' I guess?

For me the most interesting part of this is the "what now?" question, if you accept the possibility that "free will" is an illusion. Does the robot decide to keep all of its existing programs, or start tweaking them?

[Template]

You use "choice" damnably many times.  Maybe that's your error.  You assume something akin to "the brain is a deterministic machine", and that's fine, but the way you said it was horribly muddled.

Also, the example "choice" to answer or to not answer, is an arbitrary distinction.  Language just makes it easier, or even seem the obvious "choice".  That doesn't make it a very valid distinction to make.  I could specify any number of choices for the man's response to the question.

Maybe "choice", even the concept of choice, refers to an illusion.

So, Free Will.

[LMNO]

So, if Free Will is actually an immensely complicated network of past experiences, would that change the way you behave?

Because if they are functionally similar, I'm not sure what useful insights we can devise here.

[Cain]

I don't see how this proves free will.

While I can see what you are saying, in that choices are causally determined, it doesn't necessarily follow that one chooses from among those possible choices freely.  It could be both choices and our reactions are causally determined.  We may think we are making a choice, but in fact, with enough contextual knowledge, our "free act" could have been accurately predicted well beforehand, maybe even before we knew we were going to do it ourselves.

As an example.

[Telarus]

That accurately describes choice within '3rd circuit' territory (i.e. language/abstraction and time-binding/communication-of-perceptions).

If we as monkeys have anything approaching 'free will', it doesn't lie in our ability to abstract or in any choice made in abstractions or language. It rests at a totally different level (RAW pegged it as circuit 6, meta-programming). Thus the 'we are 95% robotic monkey, 5% deity' metaphor (i.e. our experiences are derived from programming beyond our direct control 95% of the time).

[Captain Utopia]

Even with metaprogramming, that implies that you're making choices about which programs to modify, generate, avoid, and give more time to? I understand that some choices have more impact than others, on your future choices, but where does the "5% deity" come from?

[Template]

Even with metaprogramming, that implies that you're making choices about which programs to modify, generate, avoid, and give more time to? I understand that some choices have more impact than others, on your future choices, but where does the "5% deity" come from?

What else could look out through the sixth circuit?  In what ways is the "I" that chooses to have sugar and milk in my coffee the same as the "I" who willfully chooses what I am and believe?

Also, I really should have ended my last post with something other than a full stop.  It makes it sound like I knew what I was doing.

[Captain Utopia]

What else could look out through the sixth circuit?  In what ways is the "I" that chooses to have sugar and milk in my coffee the same as the "I" who willfully chooses what I am and believe?

I'd take it the other way, and ask how are those "I"s in any functional way, different?

Or in other words, when does meta-meta-meta-, just all become meta?

[Telarus]

Well... my fault for using jargon you may not be familiar with. Btw, how familiar are you with the 8-Circuit Model? Once I get that we can move on from there.

[Captain Utopia]

Well... my fault for using jargon you may not be familiar with. Btw, how familiar are you with the 8-Circuit Model? Once I get that we can move on from there.

I think I understand the basic concepts, though I haven't studied it in any depth. As it is, I'm a little sceptical that circuits 7+8 aren't just illusions - e.g. I can see how your DNA might make you more anger-prone, which in turn affects your consciousness, but since that's an input which is pretty much constant over your lifetime, I don't see why that isn't a factor that you'd be able to account for in circuit 6?

But I really should finish Angel Tech, or grab a copy of PR, as I haven't read enough to really understand the inevitable holes in my logic.

[Kai]

Well... my fault for using jargon you may not be familiar with. Btw, how familiar are you with the 8-Circuit Model? Once I get that we can move on from there.

I think I understand the basic concepts, though I haven't studied it in any depth. As it is, I'm a little sceptical that circuits 7+8 aren't just illusions - e.g. I can see how your DNA might make you more anger-prone, which in turn affects your consciousness, but since that's an input which is pretty much constant over your lifetime, I don't see why that isn't a factor that you'd be able to account for in circuit 6?

But I really should finish Angel Tech, or grab a copy of PR, as I haven't read enough to really understand the inevitable holes in my logic.

[aside]After finishing PR over the weekend, Wilson's and Alli's interpretations of the 8-circuit model seem like completely different systems. And it's not just that PR is theoretical and AT is practical. Likewise they are both different from Leary's original model.[/aside]

Map's not the territory, and sometimes the map is no good.