Free Will

[SuperNull]

I believe you can't assume the universe is deterministic simply because no one can observe that determinism or the lack thereof.
As an entity INSIDE the universe, you are stuck with Heisenberg, quantum foam, Planck units and other effects that fundamentally prevent you from examining reality beyond a certain scale.
An entity OUTSIDE the universe can not look in because the universe is (likely) inside an event horizon, just like a black hole.

So can you assume something is true or false if there is no possible hypothetical observer to witness it?
If you say yes, then that means that all things are true, even those that are untrue for all possible observers.
If you say no, then the universe is not deterministic and ALSO not chaotic in nature. Noone can observe it to be so or not so, then it must be neither.

In any case logic falls apart.

(btw, first post, hi all!)

[LMNO]

It sounds like you consider the question to be meaningless.


Nothing wrong with that.

[SuperNull]

Well yeah, kind of... The trick to keep having sane conversations is to see when it stops being useful to use logic.

Making a statement about something that is subject to logic is fine.
Making a statement about logic itself is fine, but expect a paradox here and there.
Making a statement about an effect that gives rise to logic itself (I think this topic is exactly that) is....... religion. That is fine too, but don't expect it to make sense.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Well yeah, kind of... The trick to keep having sane conversations is to see when it stops being useful to use logic.

Making a statement about something that is subject to logic is fine.
Making a statement about logic itself is fine, but expect a paradox here and there.
Making a statement about an effect that gives rise to logic itself (I think this topic is exactly that) is....... religion. That is fine too, but don't expect it to make sense.

Well, believing free will exists is more useful than the alternative.

EOT

[Jasper]

Not EOT.

I have found that, with practice, one can stand back and observe oneself.  In time it becomes fairly obvious to me when I do this that my behaviors are simply a complex system interacting with it's inputs and outputs.  I start seeing how my learned reactions feed into my thoughts which provide rationalizations after the fact of my decisionmaking, not before.  After experiencing this "standing back", I've come to be fairly doubtful that any sort of "free will" in any essentialist sense really exists.

[LMNO]

There's a difference between having Free Will and using Free Will.

We can behave in a pre-programmed manner, but that doesn't mean we're forced to.

In addition, even if our behavior is a set of somewhat predicatble rules, those same rules are not dictated by a Higher Force or Intelligence, which is where a lot of non-deterministic theories lead.

[Jasper]

There's a difference between having Free Will and using Free Will.

We can behave in a pre-programmed manner, but that doesn't mean we're forced to.

That is a valuable distinction. 

But wait:

Take a garden variety p-zombie.  Say you could convince him that he was a p-zombie.  How would he behave?  If he became able to act with regard to his lack of self-awareness, would he become self-aware?

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Not EOT.

I have found that, with practice, one can stand back and observe oneself.  In time it becomes fairly obvious to me when I do this that my behaviors are simply a complex system interacting with it's inputs and outputs.  I start seeing how my learned reactions feed into my thoughts which provide rationalizations after the fact of my decisionmaking, not before.  After experiencing this "standing back", I've come to be fairly doubtful that any sort of "free will" in any essentialist sense really exists.

Regardless, belief in a lack of free will has less utility than the belief that it exists, and not only in mere philosophical terms.

It may be true that you rationalize decisions after the fact. It may be true that the entire experience of control over your decisions is another manifestation of this after the fact monkey brain.

But, true or not, having a feeling of control over your decisions is strongly linked to your mental health and immune system.

Even if it is illusory, it confers a testable, biological advantage over believing it doesn't exist.

[SuperNull]

Take a garden variety p-zombie.  Say you could convince him that he was a p-zombie.  How would he behave?  If he became able to act with regard to his lack of self-awareness, would he become self-aware?

He would reach a new level of self-awareness. On that level he could once again be convinced that what he calls self-awareness is not real sending him level-up again.

I'm not convinced this is true myself, but is sounds as the right answer......

[Jasper]

Take a garden variety p-zombie.  Say you could convince him that he was a p-zombie.  How would he behave?  If he became able to act with regard to his lack of self-awareness, would he become self-aware?

He would reach a new level of self-awareness. On that level he could once again be convinced that what he calls self-awareness is not real sending him level-up again.

I'm not convinced this is true myself, but is sounds as the right answer......

Agree, but to me that implies two things:  That "consciousness" and by extension free will, occur in degrees, not on/off.  Secondly, it implies that we're part of the continuum between no consciousness and maximum consciousness.

[SuperNull]

Take a garden variety p-zombie.  Say you could convince him that he was a p-zombie.  How would he behave?  If he became able to act with regard to his lack of self-awareness, would he become self-aware?

He would reach a new level of self-awareness. On that level he could once again be convinced that what he calls self-awareness is not real sending him level-up again.

I'm not convinced this is true myself, but is sounds as the right answer......

Agree, but to me that implies two things:  That "consciousness" and by extension free will, occur in degrees, not on/off.  Secondly, it implies that we're part of the continuum between no consciousness and maximum consciousness.

Who said there is a maximum?

[Jasper]

I'm just guessing, based on the lack of infinite things in the universe.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Are you equating free will to the degree someone is self-aware?

If not, could you clarify how you're making this inference from your self-awareness example?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Are you equating free will to the degree someone is self-aware?

If not, could you clarify how you're making this inference from your self-awareness example?

Self Awareness does seem to be necessary for 'free will' to exist in a usable fashion ... I hadn't considered that.

You have to understand HOW you react to stimuli and WHY you react in that way in order to make any changes.

OR

You have to understand that you're in the BIP, you have to understand why this brick and that bar are there, before you can renovate your cell... maybe?

[Jasper]

Because your level of free will is limited by how self-aware you are.  People lacking self-awareness tend not to exhibit much free will.  I think that one depends on the other.  Could you imagine a being whose degree of free will exceeded their self-awareness?  It doesn't seem to happen.