Are you in control of your own thoughts, actions and decisions?

[avasopht]

Avasopht...
Why do you think there is a difference in free will and free thinking?
Is thinking not an action? Do you not feel that you experience volition to some extent when directing your thoughts or attention?
Does a considered physical action (not a reaction) not require a decision and therefore is bound up w thought?

To me they’re the same in that we experience a kind of agency but then there so much going on under the hood that where the agency lies is suspect.

They refer to completely different things.

Free thinking means thinking that is free from dogma, tradition, authority, etc.

Free will originally just meant agency when addressed by Aristotle and Epictetus.

Then people started to think, well, does that mean there is no fate? How can the gods have a plan if we are free to act in ways that prevent the plan? Are they compatible? Can there be fate and free will? If the gods know the future, does that mean we are free to create it? Or even, to not create it.

Then the enlightenment happened, and the use of the term shifted again, this time questioning whether it was compatible or incompatible with determinism.

But no version of free will is the same as free thinking. They're just two very different things.

Nowadays, the free-will debate is simply asking, given the current state of the universe, the current state of your brain, the current information that your brain is processing, with the exact same arrangement of atoms in your brain ... ... ... do you make the exact same decision?

As in, is every single decision and action you make subject to absolute randomness? (which would violate your agency, since it's altering your thoughts, decisions and/or actions).

And also, are free-will and determinism compatible or incompatible?

[plaamook]

Avasopht...
Why do you think there is a difference in free will and free thinking?
Is thinking not an action? Do you not feel that you experience volition to some extent when directing your thoughts or attention?
Does a considered physical action (not a reaction) not require a decision and therefore is bound up w thought?

To me they’re the same in that we experience a kind of agency but then there so much going on under the hood that where the agency lies is suspect.

They refer to completely different things.

Free thinking means thinking that is free from dogma, tradition, authority, etc.

Free will originally just meant agency when addressed by Aristotle and Epictetus.

Then people started to think, well, does that mean there is no fate? How can the gods have a plan if we are free to act in ways that prevent the plan? Are they compatible? Can there be fate and free will? If the gods know the future, does that mean we are free to create it? Or even, to not create it.

Then the enlightenment happened, and the use of the term shifted again, this time questioning whether it was compatible or incompatible with determinism.

But no version of free will is the same as free thinking. They're just two very different things.

But they aren’t totally different. They’re totally connected. Dogma tradition etc are still just causal factors that effect our thinking. There are many of these.
You could feel as though you were thinking freely only to find out you were thinking along all too common ‘alternative’ lines.
We’ve all done this.
And as I already mentioned...thinking is (aparently) at the heart of many of our actions. At least experientially. How can you cut that out of the equation? It’s the cockpit of agency or free will or whatever you prefer.

Are free will and determinism compatible ?
I tried to address this way earlier in this thread but I’ll reiterate because who can be bothered to look for it...not me!

Fw and D are possibly a scaling problem.
The example I used was that we live on a ball but for most applications it’s more useful to think about flat planes. A 2d map will get me to france etc. But as you scale out you need to take the curvature of the Earth into account. Flight for example.
So it may be the same. It’s fine to think in terms of a kind of localised free will but as you scale out (statistics for example?) determinism starts to come into account.
This is a very simple model and I suspect it’s way more nuanced but I hope you get my point. Or even remember it!

[avasopht]

But they aren’t totally different. They’re totally connected. Dogma tradition etc are still just causal factors that effect our thinking. There are many of these.
You could feel as though you were thinking freely only to find out you were thinking along all too common ‘alternative’ lines.

But that depends entirely on what exactly you mean by free will, right?

Free thinking doesn't require non-determinism. Whether the universe is deterministic or non-deterministic, social factors can still influence our thinking and forcefully prohibit certain types of speech. At the same time, no matter what the social pressures are, or whether certain lines of thoughts are prohibited and could result in execution, nobody on this planet can actually stop you from thinking them, right?

Free will, however, has much more to do with fate, determinism, and the intervention of forces that cannot be measured in this universe (though originally it was about agency).

But you can have agency and still choose to only think in ways that are acceptable to society. You can freely choose to limit your thinking, right? After all, if we assume free will by any or all definitions exists for all people, we still know for certain that it still allowed for impediments and prohibitions of free thinking. Right?

Fw and D are possibly a scaling problem.
The example I used was that we live on a ball but for most applications it’s more useful to think about flat planes. A 2d map will get me to france etc. But as you scale out you need to take the curvature of the Earth into account. Flight for example.
So it may be the same. It’s fine to think in terms of a kind of localised free will but as you scale out (statistics for example?) determinism starts to come into account.
This is a very simple model and I suspect it’s way more nuanced but I hope you get my point. Or even remember it!

^ this.

This is most often missed in the free-will/deteminism debate.

What if all of the non-deterministic aspects of the universe have absolutely no impact at the neurological scale?

We know it has absolutely no impact at the computational scale (99.99999% of the time). That's why we can write programs in a deterministic way.

We also know that quantum uncertainty plays a role in the functioning of cells, many neurological interactions, and the folding of proteins.

Yet we can write deterministic programs to predict protein folding. So with all its involved non-determinism, you get computationally deterministic outcomes.

On the flip side, if non-determinism affected every decision we made, and would basically mean that you have a 50/50 chance of changing your mind on a per-second basis, we would cease to function as human beings (though you'd be surprised how long a random AI can survive)!

[plaamook]

Ok yeah. Let’s quickly restate the mission objective of sorts.
Free will as I understand it or use the term is...I feel I am a discrete entity separate from everything that isn’t my body or my mind and I have complete actual freedom to think and act completely independent of the state of everything that is not me. Circumstantial pressures not withstanding bla bla bla.
That’s pretty broad slapdash shit but it’ll do.

That entails that, while the entire universe as we perceive it is governed and determined by causal factors I, at least to some extent, am not. I being this sense of a self that is a body and a mind and so on.

If we’re in basic agreement on that then what you’re saying in you’re previous reply is that all my actions bodily are predetermined to whatever degree but my mind is somehow a free entity that can ‘think freely’ even though there are obvious factors that shape it constantly.
My genetics, upbringing, culture, language, formative experiences, memories, various subconscious inconsistencies...I’ll stop there.
And I’m arguing...no. In as much as we live in a causal universe your mind is in that universe too and as such it is not and never free in the way we’re discussing and is in fact subject to the same deterministic factors as e writhing else.
Or it’s literally in a parallel universe. ‍♂️

(I fucking love this shit...)

[motuscott]

I tend to bus everything to a parallel universe and there crush the living Khrushchev out of it with whatever compressor is handy.
I also compartmentalize the various parts of my consciousness into separate track folderz for easy recall.

[plaamook]

I tend to bus everything to a parallel universe and there crush the living Khrushchev out of it with whatever compressor is handy.
I also compartmentalize the various parts of my consciousness into separate track folderz for easy recall.

I’m partial to the musical equiv of dice rolling myself.

[bxbrkrz]

Are you aware you need another to tell you you don't have free will? If you conclude by yourself, without help or influences from others that free will does not exist, then maybe your are at least a free thinker.

Free will has absolutely nothing to do with free thinking.

They're two completely different things.

Free will effectively means that you are not in control of your own actions, as they're not deterministic.

If everything is based on a preset, whose doing all the programming?

Programming?

Determinism doesn't mean you're not making a decision.

It just means that the way that you make decisions is built on top of behaviour in the universe that doesn't randomly change (and therefore interfering with your decision against your will).

I believe our dialog is really about scale. You are focusing exclusively on the mind, and what may going on inside, based on your studies and expertise. I have listened, watched a lot of people over the years and it is a subject that is a fun hobby to explore. You type "free will" on yt and boom!

Scale of the mind vs scale of the universe. It is the same problem to me, from my primitive naïve realism.
A deterministic universe is as a big deal as an airline telling you their planes are safe 90% of the time. I would rather fly using a 100% safe airline.
How can a universe be a little tiny bit deterministic. It should 100% not be the case.

Answering the 'How' may win you a Nobel. Until another person answers it in turn, and replace your answer and win another Nobel. Logically the old Nobel should be destroyed, as no longer scientifically valid. Maybe it is the case, I don't know.
Answering the 'Why' is impossible because we don't have all the data, and all the data collected are ultimately filtered by our mind and our bias. That's why direct questions about 'Why' cannot directly be answered.

[plaamook]

Free will has absolutely nothing to do with free thinking.

They're two completely different things.

Free will effectively means that you are not in control of your own actions, as they're not deterministic.



Programming?

Determinism doesn't mean you're not making a decision.

It just means that the way that you make decisions is built on top of behaviour in the universe that doesn't randomly change (and therefore interfering with your decision against your will).

I believe our dialog is really about scale. You are focusing exclusively on the mind, and what may going on inside, based on your studies and expertise. I have listened, watched a lot of people over the years and it is a subject that is a fun hobby to explore. You type "free will" on yt and boom!

Scale of the mind vs scale of the universe. It is the same problem to me, from my primitive naïve realism.
A deterministic universe is as a big deal as an airline telling you their planes are safe 90% of the time. I would rather fly using a 100% safe airline.
How can a universe be a little tiny bit deterministic. It should 100% not be the case.

Answering the 'How' may win you a Nobel. Until another person answers it in turn, and replace your answer and win another Nobel. Logically the old Nobel should be destroyed, as no longer scientifically valid. Maybe it is the case, I don't know.
Answering the 'Why' is impossible because we don't have all the data, and all the data collected are ultimately filtered by our mind and our bias. That's why direct questions about 'Why' cannot directly be answered.

Exactly my point. As far as we can see iverything is deterministic. We can reverse engineer it all. But because human have this illusory ‘self’ we argue to all hell that ‘I EXIST AS A DISCRETE ENTITY!!!’ But is it possible We are the only non deterministic things in this so called material universe?
I doubt it.

[Overtherainbow]

Exactly my point. As far as we can see iverything is deterministic. We can reverse engineer it all. But because human have this illusory ‘self’ we argue to all hell that ‘I EXIST AS A DISCRETE ENTITY!!!’ But is it possible We are the only non deterministic things in this so called material universe?
I doubt it.

I have already countered this with hydroperoxyl formation, cancer, prions and suicide.

[plaamook]

Exactly my point. As far as we can see iverything is deterministic. We can reverse engineer it all. But because human have this illusory ‘self’ we argue to all hell that ‘I EXIST AS A DISCRETE ENTITY!!!’ But is it possible We are the only non deterministic things in this so called material universe?
I doubt it.

I have already countered this with hydroperoxyl formation, cancer, prions and suicide.

How’s that a counter?

[bxbrkrz]

I believe our dialog is really about scale. You are focusing exclusively on the mind, and what may going on inside, based on your studies and expertise. I have listened, watched a lot of people over the years and it is a subject that is a fun hobby to explore. You type "free will" on yt and boom!

Scale of the mind vs scale of the universe. It is the same problem to me, from my primitive naïve realism.
A deterministic universe is as a big deal as an airline telling you their planes are safe 90% of the time. I would rather fly using a 100% safe airline.
How can a universe be a little tiny bit deterministic. It should 100% not be the case.

Answering the 'How' may win you a Nobel. Until another person answers it in turn, and replace your answer and win another Nobel. Logically the old Nobel should be destroyed, as no longer scientifically valid. Maybe it is the case, I don't know.
Answering the 'Why' is impossible because we don't have all the data, and all the data collected are ultimately filtered by our mind and our bias. That's why direct questions about 'Why' cannot directly be answered.

Exactly my point. As far as we can see iverything is deterministic. We can reverse engineer it all. But because human have this illusory ‘self’ we argue to all hell that ‘I EXIST AS A DISCRETE ENTITY!!!’ But is it possible We are the only non deterministic things in this so called material universe?
I doubt it.

I don't know if this is true but there is this story about Nikola Tesla and how he came up with his invention. I believe it was the induction motor, the dynamo. He visualized the whole thing in his mind, according to the story. 'Out of thin air'. This is not a unique situation, and most of us find this trivial, and very normal. We want to test it, produce it, profit, and move on.

I wonder if the concept of 'inspiration' is coded, or an illusion. And since we all have the same brain on average, how come some people are 'inspired', but not others. Maybe a mapping across all our minds looking for what inspiration is would look like the matter distribution in the universe

[Overtherainbow]

I have already countered this with hydroperoxyl formation, cancer, prions and suicide.

How’s that a counter?

None of those processes are strictly deterministic.

[jam-s]

I wonder if the concept of 'inspiration' is coded, or an illusion. And since we all have the same brain on average, how come some people are 'inspired', but not others. Maybe a mapping across all our minds looking for what inspiration is would look like the matter distribution in the universe

Objection! We don't have the same brains. The brain is that part of the body which might consist of the same basic building blocks in a pretty well defined preprogrammed arrangement, but the inner connection matrix is highly customised by the process we call learning or experience. Thus different sensory input during the formation stage of the brain can lead to vastly different output especially with respect to empathy, creativity, skills, inspiration, etc.

(a tangent: Then there is also the hormonal component which some extreme feminists just want to ignore or even reverse (and where quite some opposition to this movement stems from) which also helps in building specific brain paths which then possibly leads to certain sexual stereotypes in general.)

[plaamook]

How’s that a counter?

None of those processes are strictly deterministic.

I don’t remember your counter. You’ll have to dig it out an quote it or explain again.
But for the sake of argument...what’s not deterministic about suicide?

[bxbrkrz]

I wonder if the concept of 'inspiration' is coded, or an illusion. And since we all have the same brain on average, how come some people are 'inspired', but not others. Maybe a mapping across all our minds looking for what inspiration is would look like the matter distribution in the universe

Objection! We don't have the same brains. The brain is that part of the body which might consist of the same basic building blocks in a pretty well defined preprogrammed arrangement, but the inner connection matrix is highly customised by the process we call learning or experience. Thus different sensory input during the formation stage of the brain can lead to vastly different output especially with respect to empathy, creativity, skills, inspiration, etc.

(a tangent: Then there is also the hormonal component which some extreme feminists just want to ignore or even reverse (and where quite some opposition to this movement stems from) which also helps in building specific brain paths which then possibly leads to certain sexual stereotypes in general.)

I know we don't have the exact same brain, but 'inspiration' does not care much about the details it seems.

Earlier I was talking about some people having their brain 'switched' to become another brain after some event, or trauma. Maybe that person was lying, and was a math genius already, pretending to be average.
Science does not agree and has a name for it: acquired savant syndrome, or a.s.s.

Is a.s.s. a dormant condition to us all?

[jam-s]

I know we don't have the exact same brain, but 'inspiration' does not care much about the details it seems.

Earlier I was talking about some people having their brain 'switched' to become another brain after some event, or trauma. Maybe that person was lying, and was a math genius already, pretending to be average.
Science does not agree and has a name for it: acquired savant syndrome, or a.s.s.

Is a.s.s. a dormant condition to us all?

This might be an effect of the two brain lobes inside our skulls:

[bxbrkrz]

I know we don't have the exact same brain, but 'inspiration' does not care much about the details it seems.

Earlier I was talking about some people having their brain 'switched' to become another brain after some event, or trauma. Maybe that person was lying, and was a math genius already, pretending to be average.
Science does not agree and has a name for it: acquired savant syndrome, or a.s.s.

Is a.s.s. a dormant condition to us all?

This might be an effect of the two brain lobes inside our skulls:

I don't know if a.s.s. happens only after a physical violent event.

[jam-s]

I don't know if a.s.s. happens only after a physical violent event.

I think usually some kind of force on the brain is involved either from external factors or due to internal pressure or chemical interaction leading to swelling of parts of the brain. I think I've also read about magnetics induced behaviour changes in experiments. So some active factor seems to be involved.

Also quite related to this thread:

EDIT: ... or even more in depth:

[bxbrkrz]

I don't know if a.s.s. happens only after a physical violent event.

I think usually some kind of force on the brain is involved either from external factors or due to internal pressure or chemical interaction leading to swelling of parts of the brain. I think I've also read about magnetics induced behaviour changes in experiments. So some active factor seems to be involved.

Also quite related to this thread:

EDIT: ... or even more in depth:

Sounds like all potentials and possibilities are already built in the brain.
Government could save so much money in education thanks to a.s.s.
Just replace 99% of the teachers with a baseball bat

[motuscott]

Now I ask you: what can be expected of man since he is a being endowed with strange qualities? Shower upon him every earthly blessing, drown him in a sea of happiness, so that nothing but bubbles of bliss can be seen on the surface; give him economic prosperity, such that he should have nothing else to do but sleep, eat cakes and busy himself with the continuation of his species, and even then out of sheer ingratitude, sheer spite, man would play you some nasty trick. He would even risk his cakes and would deliberately desire the most fatal rubbish, the most uneconomical absurdity, simply to introduce into all this positive good sense his fatal fantastic element. It is just his fantastic dreams, his vulgar folly that he will desire to retain, simply in order to prove to himself—as though that were so necessary—that men still are men and not the keys of a piano.
Fyodor Dostoyevski, Notes From the Underground, 1864

[avasopht]

I think usually some kind of force on the brain is involved either from external factors or due to internal pressure or chemical interaction leading to swelling of parts of the brain. I think I've also read about magnetics induced behaviour changes in experiments. So some active factor seems to be involved.

Also quite related to this thread:

EDIT: ... or even more in depth:

And it can happen spontaneously.

Bear in mind that for a long time, the vast majority of our cognitive feats and interests would have been inhibited by our constant and immediate survival needs, I wouldn't be surprised if cognitive suppression wasn't a core function of neurological resource regulation.

Factor in the brain being the most resource demanding organ pound for pound consuming 20% of what you eat, and it makes sense that it might be playing dumb.

Then throw in the huge risks it faces when it opens the gate (which may include all manners of mental disorders and self deception), and it's understandable that we might be using a fraction of our brains potential and that, more importantly, most of its genius lies in preventing what could be genius, lest it manifest madness by accident.

[littlejam]

hello,

@ motuscott:

i am glad to see vlad back in business

thank you,


j

[bxbrkrz]

The age of the universe is around 13.78 billion years, according to wikipedia.
How old is our consciousness? Was it a spontaneous birth Just around the time our brain got big enough maybe? So less than 60000 years max? Maybe more?

https://www.yourgenome.org/stories/evol ... man-brain/

[plaamook]

Depends on what you call consciousness.
Cephalopods are way older than us and relatively unchanged for some time and they seem to be highly intelligent.
But then if you think all animals are conscious...and I do for some stupid reason ...then how old is consciousness? Advanced intelligence and consciousness aren’t the same thing necessarily.

[motuscott]

if you think all animals are conscious...and I do for some stupid reason

I'll see you and raise you one,
All objects have a life force.

I have tooks many LSDs and have had almost 67 years to think it over...
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.