God's will and quantum mechanics

[SelfSim]

Sure - but having a 'sense of free will' says nothing about detailed causality in any case, it's just a feeling. That we might regret our choices in retrospect just highlights how little we know of the reasons for them (their causes).

.. or it highlights the senseless futility of attempting to apply the concept of causality as the explanation basis.

I mean who asks what is the cause of fear, anger, surprise, disgust, etc? Answer is everything held in mind .. or nothing independent from one!
Asking the wrong questions you are .. just as philosophers have done for centuries (and gotten nowhere of any practical use)!

 

[SelfSim]

So I'll revise my previous argument that consciousness is the harbinger of free will to further stipulate that consciousness augmented by the ability to reason leads to free will.

Unfortunately we're then back to Schopenhauer again, because a man can freely choose between the things he consciously considers, but he can't choose the things he consciously considers.

Hmm .. I can reason in my sleep, but there's no checks and balances on the rationale though.
I must be reasoning on behalf of the characters in my dreams .. yet I still have no idea of the causes underpinning their choices. They seem to exhibit responses consistent with the way people in my fully conscious state do. I don't think I've experienced any 'supernatural' characters in a dream since I was a very young child(?) I do seem to awake suddenly with some very practical and obvious solutions to everyday problems immediately following a dream though .. (as though the mental blockages have been removed by dreaming).

Sleep is regarded as an 'altered state' of consciousness, but I don't think the reasoning behind causality arguments, could be said as crossing the distinguishing boundary of the altered/unaltered state of consciousness there ... free will abounds and flourishes however, in the altered state of sleep though ... with no concerns for any causes

 

[Neutral Observer]

Hmm .. I can reason in my sleep, but there's no checks and balances on the rationale though.
I must be reasoning on behalf of the characters in my dreams .. yet I still have no idea of the causes underpinning their choices. They seem to exhibit responses consistent with the way people in my fully conscious state do. I don't think I've experienced any 'supernatural' characters in a dream since I was a very young child(?) I do seem to awake suddenly with some very practical and obvious solutions to everyday problems immediately following a dream though .. (as though the mental blockages have been removed by dreaming).

I assume that this is common for just about everybody, because I used to do the same thing. For years I'd keep paper and pen on my nightstand, because I knew that if I woke up with an idea running through my head that I wouldn't be able to get back to sleep until I wrote it down. It's amazing how many times I'd spend hours agonizing over a particular problem only to wake up in the morning with the solution perfectly clear in my head.

But I've also wondered, what else is that sleeping brain doing that I'm not privy to, for example, is it responsible for the biases, preconceptions, and general likes and dislikes that I have? Which of 'my' ideas are actually 'its' ideas? So on the one hand that sleeping brain seems to be pretty good at problem solving, but on the other hand perhaps it has a far greater influence on my behavior than I may realize or want it to have. And as an aside, why doesn't it speak up when I need to contemplate math, or physics, or where the heck I left my car keys? Or am I just too distracted to listen?

Which leads to another question, if the conscious part of me is able to 'override' the subconscious part of me, is that necessarily a good thing or a bad thing? Because the conscious part of people can seem to be pretty irrational at times, and I don't know which part of their brain to blame. Somewhere in there may be a rational person trying to get out.

Then again I shouldn't complain because some of humanity's 'best' ideas have been inspired by other people's 'stupid' ideas. Never underestimate the ability of 'stupid' to find an acorn every now and again.

 

[SelfSim]

I assume that this is common for just about everybody, because I used to do the same thing. For years I'd keep paper and pen on my nightstand, because I knew that if I woke up with an idea running through my head that I wouldn't be able to get back to sleep until I wrote it down. It's amazing how many times I'd spend hours agonizing over a particular problem only to wake up in the morning with the solution perfectly clear in my head.

Also using myself as a crash-test dummy here, one thing I've learned about this, is that when I inevitably 'awake', that particular state of 'awakedness' is a false state of awakedness .. meaning; I know from past experience of this, that I will be incapable of solving the problem whilst in that 'false' state. Perhaps this is also why writing ideas on paper works for you too(?) I've found more often than not, the solution the next morning, once fully conscious, (and coffee'd up), is blatantly obvious .. even intuitive .. and usually easy to implement. Such solutions however, were never able to be physically attempted while I was in that 'false' state .. So, when I awake, and immediately go into wrestling with a familiar problem, I now tell myself to start thinking about some completely different, pleasant fantasy because I know I won't be able to sort out the real problem in that state of mind.

There's quite a sharp divide there .. subjective experiences (like fantasies) are useful in a full-on sleep mode (for getting rest) but the square peg in the round hole is rational reasoning attempting to 'fire up' during sleep .. it seems to be necessary for one to be experiencing direct physical sensations from the senses to sort out real world problems, which only returns again when fully awake(?)

Either way, I am still conscious when asleep, or awake, and reasoning somehow still makes its appearance in both states, but is only effective when fully awake. The notion of causality is not present until I'm fully awake (and hence when I can think properly again with the added benefit of the full gamut of physical sensory perceptions.

IOW: Cause/Effect is related to thinking in a fully awake, full sensory perception and thinking mode .. whereas Free Will is related to an unconstrained, (by sensory data), dream/fantasy mode. Free Will, in a fully awake state, can be brought on by an intense focus on immediate sensory data, but not having it mean anything, so once again, thinking is not present with the Free Will mindset. .. IMO (of course)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

But I would argue that this merely suggests that we may need to clarify what we mean by a free will choice. Are free will choices simply those choices that rise to the level of conscious reasoning? Is this a capacity that other animals lack? If so then what does this capacity to reason afford us if not the ability to consider the implications of our choices, and then to consciously choose between them based upon those implications? And is it really a misnomer to refer to these consciously derived choices as free will choices.

We can reason. Other animals can't. What does that ability to reason gain us?

I agree that we need to clarify what we mean by a 'free will choice' - that is what I've been asking you to do in this conversation. When I use it, I generally mean a choice that feels free from explicit coercion or restraint. I say 'feels' because I think it is subjective, as we all internalise societal (including moral) constraints of varying kinds to varying degrees and these differ across cultures.

ISTM that if a choice feels coerced or constrained, we must be conscious of it, so it would seem that choices we are not consciously aware of can be called (or assumed to be) free will choices by my definition (i.e. that is how they'd feel if we were aware of making them).

There are, of course, many other definitions of 'free will', which is why I've ben pressing you to explain what you mean by it.

Reasoning allows us to go beyond the simple heurustics of System 1 (unconscious, fast, easy, intuitive) thinking, providing greater flexibility and specificity in problem-solving. In conjunction with our ability to project forward and backward in time, it allows us to learn key lessons from our successes and failures and to plan ahead by visualising potential futures (temporal counterfactuals ). It also allows us to better predict what others are likely to do, by combining what we know of their character traits with what we would do in their situation, and to better understand what they may know about, or expect of, us - e.g. what we know that they know that we know they know... Language helps us perform extended reasoning by manipulating concepts as symbols.

Nevertheless, reasoning delegates much of the donkey work to unconscious processes.

As for conscious choices, I think it's more a process of making explicit what the unconscious ('elephant') wants to do. At best, our reasoning provides more options for the unconscious to consider. When we become aware of the results, we can tell ourselves that this is what we want to do. Our conscious selves are given (or take) credit for good choices, and the unconscious is often blamed for bad choices.

My preferred analogy for the relationship between conscious & unconscious is that the conscious is like the public figurehead of a large company, with lawyers continually offering advice, reports from the various departments, and a PR unit keeping him updated with events. He thinks he's running things and interacts with the world on that basis, presenting a polished impression of the company as a single unified entity rather than a diverse collection of (often competing) departments, personally taking credit for successes and blaming internal problems for failures. YMMV

In short, I don't think there are such things as 'consciously-derived choices'; consciousness establishes and/or reflects our unconscious choices, much as an election establishes who the people want to be governed by.

Even if Schopenhauer is right, and "A man can do what he wants, but not want what he wants.", does the fact that a man can also consider the implications of what he wants mean that Schopenhauer was only partly right?

I don't think so. It's true that reasoning can reveal implications that may cause us to reconsider what we want, e.g. something that we dislike more than what we wanted, or something that we want more than our initial want, but that's just discovering what we want when we are more fully informed - that's a major part of how reasoning helps in decision-making.

It's analogous to the role of science in decision-making - it can inform decisions but can't make the decision for you - that depends on what you want.

So I'll revise my previous argument that consciousness is the harbinger of free will to further stipulate that consciousness augmented by the ability to reason leads to free will.

Unfortunately we're then back to Schopenhauer again, because a man can freely choose between the things he consciously considers, but he can't choose the things he consciously considers.

A bit of a conundrum wouldn't you say?

I don't think Schopenhauer's aphorism is a conundrum, but I can't say whether your interpretation leads to one because you haven't yet said what you mean by a free will choice... But if your logic or reasoning leads to a conundrum or contradiction, that suggests there may be a flaw in it

It hearkens back to the garden of Eden wherein Adam and Eve had to weigh the merits of two choices. Ultimately I don't think that it was the choice that mattered so much as it was the fact that they had the ability to weigh them that mattered. Because it's that ability to weigh one's choices that allows one to differentiate between "good" and "evil". And that I might suggest, is the hallmark of free will.

A chess computer can evaluate the potential moves in a given position and weigh them against its criteria for a 'good' or 'bad' move, but I don't think that gives it free will.

I thought that the problem with the story of Adam and Eve was that they couldn't weigh the merits of their choices until they had eaten from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, by which time it was too late...

 

[Mountainmike]

I'm aware that violence in general has been decreasing for hundreds of years, but the claim I was responding to was that a god belief helps prevent wrongdoing, and I would like to see some evidence that this makes a significant difference, because, AIUI, secular societies experience no more (and possibly less) wrongdoing than religious ones (with the caveat previously mentioned).

Chinese cultural revolution.
Russian gulag
Pol pots killing fields.
the holocaust.
Mass culling of the most vulnerable life in abortion (tens millions a year)
Rwandan genocide.
Serbian genocides
How many aids victims in sub Saharan Africa ? spread by multipartner sex for pleasure.
( all in last hundred years)
before that…

Mass extermination in the French Republic , take the vendee.
need I goon?
many many more…it’s getting worse not better.

All bitterly proves your point…

At least a billion needless deaths between them.


When you pretend life is just a chemical reaction, it also becomes totally worthless.
hedonism and power are all that are left.
That is the true consequence of what they laughably call “enlightenment”
Life becomes expendablue , even the weakest humans , the unborn have no value In the pursuit of selfishness, pleasure or power.

Religion has also had its bad moments, or rather people in the name of religion not truly representing it.
but never remotely on the scale of “ enlightenment “ atheism. The death factory.

Think we are better now? Ask the tens of millions unborn , now never to be born, ripped out as bits.
ask the aids victims , victim of treating multi partner sex as a pastime.

Thanfully “ Interventions” as in Portugal 1917 saw off sone of the worst of communism.
or it would have been worse…

 

[Neutral Observer]

Mass culling of the most vulnerable life in abortion (tens millions a year)

Uhmm... perhaps you should rethink this one.

Who's having abortions (religion)?
Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as "Born-again/Evangelical".

Abortion Statistics | Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese

WORLDWIDE Number of abortions per year: Approximately 46 Million Number of abortions per day: Approximately 126,000 Where abortions occur: 78% of all abortions are obtained in developing countries and 22% occur in developed countries.

ww1.antiochian.org

 

[dlamberth]

We can reason. Other animals can't. What does that ability to reason gain us?

So I'll revise my previous argument that consciousness is the harbinger of free will to further stipulate that consciousness augmented by the ability to reason leads to free will.

I have no desire to enter into this thread because it's way over my head. I do wish to comment on a couple of items though. What triggered me is that I disagree that animals can not reason at the most basic, basic level. I think that's due to their having consciousness, again at a more basic level.

 

[SelfSim]

.. I disagree that animals can not reason at the most basic, basic level. I think that's due to their having consciousness, again at a more basic level.

.. and we notice that its yourself thinking that.

'A reason' involves giving an explanation or justification for observable actions.
Sure .. we observe animals performing actions .. but the reasons for their actions demonstrably come from us .. (as you just demonstrated).

 

[dlamberth]

.. and we notice that its yourself thinking that.

'A reason' involves giving an explanation or justification for observable actions.
Sure .. we observe animals performing actions .. but the reasons for their actions demonstrably come from us .. (as you just demonstrated).

I don't know. That seems pretty limited. But what do I know. All I do know is that I've watched animals make decisions based on what they were observing around them. How is that not using reason?

 

[SelfSim]

All I do know is that I've watched animals make decisions based on what they were observing around them. How is that not using reason?

No .. all you saw was animals performing actions.
You're the one saying they're making decisions (by reasoning).
Unless you think you're an animal mind-reader .. which, once again, would be you thinking that.

 

[dlamberth]

No .. all you saw was animals performing actions.
You're the one saying they're making decisions (by reasoning).
Unless you think you're an animal mind-reader .. which, once again, would be you thinking that.

Yes...I watched animals make decisions. You don't need to be a mind reader to see decisions being made. What I don't know is the reasoning process.

 

[SelfSim]

Yes...I watched animals make decisions. You don't need to be a mind reader to see decisions being made. What I don't know is the reasoning process.

How could you possibly know they were making reasoned decisions?
How could you possibly distinguish between an impulse and a reasoned decision, when there is nothing in the observational data that would refute your idea that it was a reasoned decision?

If you think there is, then all we'd have is evidence that it was just you thinking that .. and nothing there about the supposed animal's mental reasoning process.

PS: Remember a reason is a justified explanation for actions taken. I am yet to hear an animal give a justified explanation for any actions they take!

 

[dlamberth]

PS: Remember a reason is a justified explanation for actions taken. I am yet to hear an animal give a justified explanation for any actions they take!

A decision has been made. Action taken. Why must an "explanation" be given?

 

[Neutral Observer]

PS: Remember a reason is a justified explanation for actions taken. I am yet to hear an animal give a justified explanation for any actions they take!

This response puzzles me. Are you saying that observation without expressed justification is inadequate to establish the possibility of reasoned intent? When my dog stands at the door waiting to be let outside to do its business, is there really no grounds to consider that there might be reasoned intent there?

Somehow I find your argument to be uncompelling.

 

[SelfSim]

A decision has been made. Action taken.

Yes that's your explanation ..

Why must an "explanation" be given?

Look it up!
Take for eg, Merriam's definitions of the noun, 'reason' (below).
See my underlines then try and convince us that these are done by any animals other than humans!:
Its always you providing the explanatory reasons .. (not the animal).

a: a statement offered in explanation or justification gave reasons that were quite satisfactory
b: a rational ground or motive a good reason to act soon
c: the thing that makes some fact intelligible
d: a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense especially: something (such as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact
2a(1): the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways : INTELLIGENCE
verb
1: to use the faculty of reason so as to arrive at conclusions
2a : to talk with another so as to influence actions or opinions
b: obsolete : to take part in conversation, discussion, or argument

 

[SelfSim]

This response puzzles me. Are you saying that observation without expressed justification is inadequate to establish the possibility of reasoned intent? When my dog stands at the door waiting to be let outside to do its business, is there really no grounds to consider that there might be reasoned intent there?

See 'anthropomorphic':

adjective​

an·thro·po·mor·phic ˌan(t)-thrə-pə-ˈmȯr-fik

1: described or thought of as having a human form or human attributes anthropomorphic deities stories involving anthropomorphic animals

2: ascribing human characteristics to nonhuman things anthropomorphic supernaturalism anthropomorphic beliefs about nature.

Somehow I find your argument to be uncompelling.

Yes .. such is the corollary effect of the nature of an embedded belief, where 'a belief' is:

'Any notion held as being true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests, and is not beholden to the rules of logic'.

Ie: it doesn't matter how much logic based on objective evidence that is presented that its you doing the thinking that your dog is reasoning with you, you'll always find that uncompelling due to your anthropomorphic beliefs about being 'what must be true' ..

I am yet to meet any dog which could explain its reasons for what it does.

 

[Neutral Observer]

See 'anthropomorphic':

adjective​

an·thro·po·mor·phic ˌan(t)-thrə-pə-ˈmȯr-fik

1: described or thought of as having a human form or human attributes anthropomorphic deities stories involving anthropomorphic animals

2: ascribing human characteristics to nonhuman things anthropomorphic supernaturalism anthropomorphic beliefs about nature

Ie: it doesn't matter how much logic based on objective evidence that is presented that its you doing the thinking that your dog is reasoning with you, you'll always find that uncompelling due to your anthropomorphic beliefs being 'what must be true' ..

I am yet to meet any dog which could explain its reasons for what it does.

So I take it that this is your long way of saying that you don't think that my dog standing at the door waiting to be let out to do its business constitutes reasoned intent? The rest of your post was just deflection.

Personally I think that it clearly shows intent. The dog has a purpose for going to the door, it's not simply random. It knows why its going to the door and it knows what going to the door will accomplish. And failing that it knows that a slight yip will further serve to accomplish its goal. If that's not demonstrating reasoned intent then I don't know what reasoned intent looks like.

Now if you would actually like to offer a legitimate rebuttal as to how my dog's actions don't constitute evidence of reasoned intent then I'd be more than happy to consider it.

 

[dlamberth]

I am yet to meet any dog which could explain its reasons for what it does.

I think your hung up with the idea that if not explained, it's not reason. But the action taken by reason doesn't need explaining. It's the result of said reason that it becomes alive.

 

[SelfSim]

So I take it that this is your long way of saying that you don't think that my dog standing at the door waiting to be let out to do its business constitutes reasoned intent?

Oh it constitutes 'a reasoned intent' alright .. there's just no evidence that it was the dog's 'reasoned intent' .. there is lots of evidence for it having been your 'reasoned intent', based on your observations of the dog's behaviour.

Personally I think that it clearly shows intent.

Well, there ya go .. it is you just thinking that .. with no evidence for the dog thinking that. Its in your own words (see underline there).

The dog has a purpose for going to the door, it's not simply random.
It knows why its going to the door and it knows what going to the door will accomplish. And failing that it knows that a slight yip will further serve to accomplish its goal. If that's not demonstrating reasoned intent then I don't know what reasoned intent looks like.

Its a learned behaviour .. but that doesn't have to rise to the level of the dog having a reason.
Its still your reason .. until you have evidence of reasoning (presumably), expressed by the dog .. a tail wag, yip and going to the door, is insufficient for the purpose of distinguishing between a learned behaviour and the dog reasoning.
It is evidence that it has learned to do all that, (and maybe evidence of an instinctive motivator).
Reasoning is different .. it requires an explanation from the reasoning mind .. and not some other mind (like yours).

Now if you would actually like to offer a legitimate rebuttal as to how my dog's actions don't constitute evidence of reasoned intent then I'd be more than happy to consider it.

Consider away then.
My rebuttal is based on the definitions I have provided objective evidence for .. what's your basis?