Free Will

Neogaia777 said:

Maybe that's because you're trying to impose non-linear reasoning on what is in truth and reality, and by nature, a deterministic linear system, etc.

Click to expand...

Nope.
The other lesson from the Butterfly Effect was how the logic of math doesn't always translate across to Physics when it comes to predictability.

Neogaia777 said:

Linear time invariant deterministic, etc.
When you have and know all the right maths, etc.

Click to expand...

Two major provable differences between linear and non-linear systems are:

Difference #1:
Linear system - The impulse response (see note#1) is unique for a given linear time invariant (LTI) system;
Non linear system - Multiple systems can have the same impulse response.

Difference #2:
Linear system: The logical order (ie: the sequence) of LTI subsystems produces the same impulse response;
Non linear system: The logical order (ie: the sequence) of subsystems produces different impulse responses.

Note #1: Any LTI system can be characterized entirely by a single function called the system's impulse response see here.

Human behaviours (when it comes to choosing) could be categorised under these system types but the important aspect is to consider the behaviours across the whole population of choosing humans .. and not just the ones one wishes (or holds beliefs about).

SelfSim said:

Nope.
The other lesson from the Butterfly Effect was how the logic of math doesn't always translate across to Physics when it comes to predictability.

Click to expand...

Not the math that we currently have or know.

God Bless!

SelfSim said:

Two major provable differences between linear and non-linear systems are:

Difference #1:
Linear system - The impulse response (see note#1) is unique for a given linear time invariant (LTI) system;
Non linear system - Multiple systems can have the same impulse response.

Difference #2:
Linear system: The logical order (ie: the sequence) of LTI subsystems produces the same impulse response;
Non linear system: The logical order (ie: the sequence) of subsystems produces different impulse responses.

Note #1: Any LTI system can be characterized entirely by a single function called the system's impulse response see here.

Human behaviours (when it comes to choosing) could be categorised under these system types but the important aspect is to consider the behaviours across the whole population of choosing humans .. and not just the ones one wishes (or holds beliefs about).

Click to expand...

I think you are just trying to muddy.the waters, because this is very simple and easy to understand, but just maybe not so easy or simple to fully comprehend, etc...

Refute what @Bradskii has been saying, and has been having to repeat over and over and over again, or give me just one example of any kind of human reaction or choice or impulse or response, etc, that is truly random, etc, or do not...

It's your quote/unquote "choice", etc...

God Bless!

Neogaia777 said:

Not the math that we currently have or know.

Click to expand...

Incorrect .. the lessons I refer to there, came from what was later recognised as being the foundations of modern chaos theory, a branch of mathematics focusing on the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions (see here).

Neogaia777 said:

I think you are just trying to muddy the waters, ..

Click to expand...

'The waters' were cleared by Lorenz's work done during the 1950s/1960s.
Ignoring that work to avoid a deeper understanding only serves to sustain a 'muddied' and highly biased view of the topic, as presented for pages now via philosphically based word-salad.

SelfSim said:

Incorrect .. the lessons I refer to there, came from what was later recognised as being the foundations of modern chaos theory, a branch of mathematics focusing on the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions (see here).

Click to expand...

Why are we having to come up with new maths then...?

What we have right now, is very, very infantile, etc, and is only the tip of the tip of the iceberg, etc, and we are only right now beginning to discover that, etc...

It's usefulness is very, very limited right now, due to just how infantile it is right now, etc...

But the concept or idea of what is being discussed here, is very, very easy, etc...

I think you just don't like it/that because you think you/me/we already know or understand it all already, etc...

But we are right now not even anywhere close, etc...

And new discoveries are showing that, etc...

God Bless!

SelfSim said:

'The waters' were cleared by Lorenz's work done during the 1950s/1960s.
Ignoring that work to avoid a deeper understanding only serves to sustain a 'muddied' and highly biased view of the topic, as presented for pages now via philosphically based word-salad.

Click to expand...

Are you going to give me an example, or not...?

Because if not, or because you can't, or if you are afraid to, etc, then I think we are done here, etc...

God Bless!

I will keep learning, and changing, and growing, but I have very little respect (or patience) for anyone who doesn't, or won't any longer, just because they think they already know everything, etc...

But I don't see this concept or idea ever changing in my mind at all ever however, etc...

God Bless!

Neogaia777 said:

I will keep learning, and changing, and growing, but I have very little respect (or patience) for anyone who doesn't, or won't any longer, just because they think they already know everything, etc...

But I don't see this concept or idea ever changing in my mind at all ever however, etc...

God Bless!

Click to expand...

Sigh .. What on Earth are you even on about? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

SelfSim said:

Sigh .. What on Earth are you even on about? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Click to expand...

You know, but just won't admit it to yourself, just like this topic here.

Anyway, I'm in bed trying to sleep.

Have a good night.

God Bless.

SelfSim said:

Just restating your evidently believed-in true posit there .. not much 'juice' in just a belief for me, I'm afraid......

Click to expand...

Ok, so tell us a third decision making option besides:
a. having a reason(s) for a choice
b. making a choice randomly.

durangodawood said:

I had mentioned imagination earlier as an part of a function free will capacity. But if we take a physical-determinist view, I'm dont see how imagination, the "could be" work, is untethered from the cause/effect chain any more than anything else.

Click to expand...

That's a very interesting point to ponder.

The human imagination does indeed add a fascinating element to the concept of determinism and free will. We begin with a system that's completely deterministic. 'A' leads to 'B' which leads to 'C'. In an nonconscious system that's pretty straightforward, and it just continues like that ad infinitum. But then when the system becomes conscious you begin to add to the equation not just what's definitively true, i.e. 'A' and 'B' and 'C' but also what's imagined to be true, or what one believes to be true. In which case determinism still underpins the system, but what's really driving the system forward is that "illusion" of what's true. The illusion becomes the driving force, and 'A', 'B', and 'C' are almost just along for the ride. Determinism initialized the conscious mind but the mind's increasingly subjective view of reality starts to supersede that deterministic foundation.

The question is, is there a point where that illusion, and those beliefs, have a cascading effect, such that they become the driving force behind how the system evolves? The system is still deterministic, but now the predominant factors aren't 'A', 'B', and 'C', but rather an emergent factor...the conscious mind and its concept of itself and everything else. In which case one has to ask, has the mind taken on a will of its own, still driven by determinism, but a determinism that's been overwhelmed by the mind itself and what it believes?

Do the fundamental bits of 'A', 'B', and 'C' become superseded by an emergent bit, the conscious mind? And does the mind now have a will of its own? Not entirely free as some might imagine it to be, but not entirely subjugated to materialistic determinism either.

See what happens when you give me an interesting idea. It's not pretty.

partinobodycular said:

......Do the fundamental bits of 'A', 'B', and 'C' become superseded by an emergent bit, the conscious mind? And does the mind now have a will of its own? Not entirely free as some might imagine it to be, but not entirely subjugated to materialistic determinism either....

Click to expand...

I do think something like this happens. But I have no way to point to the actual mechanism whereby material cause-effect is bypassed. And so Ive got nothing to convince determinists to give up their position. I just have goofy sounding speculations like what I provided in post 13.

durangodawood said:

Ok, so tell us a third decision making option besides:
a. having a reason(s) for a choice
b. making a choice randomly.

Click to expand...

I agree with @partinobodycular in that imagination can form the basis of free will. I was about to point out that expressions of creativity are the evidence.

In generalising to a model to analyse the respective behaviours, (using systems analysis), one could easily point to the uniqueness of the response from a given, known linear time invariant (LTI) system. The uniqueness there, in human terms, when it comes to processes at play in a choice, (motivated by some impulse stimulus), might be the uniqueness clearly evident in expressions of creativity.

One could then also equally point to the 'sameness' of the response from a given, known non-linear system. The 'sameness' there, in human terms, when it comes to processes at play in a choice (motivated by some impulse stimulus), might form the basis for objectivity in say, scientific thinking.

What I'm doing here is forming an all encompassing framework, or model, for describing how humans make choices. The model would serve to gather and categorise the available evidence. The purpose of doing it, would lead to forming testable questions about whether our minds act in both linear and non-linear ways in making choices. We might end up concluding that what we've been referring to by the quite meaningless terms of 'deterministic choices' and 'free will choices', might actually be indicative of linear and non-linear system impulse response modes of our minds when making choices. Both exist, because we can test for, and even prove, the response behaviours.

After all, the above approach is quite valid across different scales when contemplating complex biological functioning. See Life at the edge: complexity and criticality in biological function.

Neogaia777 said:

I used to think the way you do, etc.

Lol.

God Bless!

Click to expand...

What is funny about thinking we have free will?

Neogaia777 said:

Tossing a coin is not even random, but can be calculated by the factors at hand, the way the person picks up the coin, rests it on their fingers or thumbs, tosses or flips it, force, aerodynamics, how the wind is blowing that day, and any other factors, and how it eventually lands, either heads or tails, etc.

God Bless!

Click to expand...

So? No one figures out all the factors that would go into the flip,, so it's random to them.

Bradskii said:

Arbitrary means random. A random choice is no different to tossing a coin. To say that it is free will to have chocolate if you toss heads and vanilla if you toss tails is nonsensical.

Click to expand...

Why? You freely choose to

renniks said:

Why? You freely choose to

Click to expand...

No. If it's random then there is effectively no input. It's akin to a coin toss or spinning a roulette wheel: If it lands on red I'll have chocolate. If it lands on black I'll have vanilla. The choice is made for you. It's the very opposite of making a conscious decision.

So with that out of the way, the only other type of choice is one made for a reason. Or multiple reasons. And if you make a decision based on those reasons and the tape is rerun and you have exactly the same situation with exactly the same reasons, then you need to tell me what there could be that would cause a different decision.

Bradskii said:

No. If it's random then there is effectively no input. It's akin to a coin toss or spinning a roulette wheel: If it lands on red I'll have chocolate. If it lands on black I'll have vanilla. The choice is made for you. It's the very opposite of making a conscious decision.

So with that out of the way, the only other type of choice is one made for a reason. Or multiple reasons. And if you make a decision based on those reasons and the tape is rerun and you have exactly the same situation with exactly the same reasons, then you need to tell me what there could be that would cause a different decision.

Click to expand...

Because there are always multiple reasons and multiple choices among the reasons. A reason isn't a cause.